Integral is great, because that compartmentalization is absent

Integral Practice or...something else? by ebuddha

on Fri 20 Apr 2007 08:55 PM PDT Permanent Link Cosmos

Sometimes I despair, around the label of "integral". For myself, I've been reflecting - and my integral interests flow in LIVING, and PRACTICING around the following themes:

• Spiritual realization/non-dual
• Meditation
• Holistic living (right food, right exercise, right service)
• Right livelihood, productive and practical
• Heart-centered full embodiment (energetic, emotional, psychological)
• Creative interests

Is that "integral?" Is that "western Buddhism?" Is that "holistic"? Is that a "cultural creative"?

It could be any of the above, correct? Also, that's pretty encompassing. Ken Wilber and theory is, perhaps, a philosophical framework for embracing the above LIVED qualities, but I would suggest that integral per se, is limiting. Integral is great, because that compartmentalization is absent - the body/mind/soul is embraced, but could be limiting as well, given that the philosophical framework is intimidating, and associated for better and for worse with one guy (Wilber).

Zaadz is, in a sense, the community activity around the above interests - I should interact there more, one would think! At any rate, as a branding exercise - given the above interests, how would you describe the interests above? Integral, or something else?

***

Integrating evolutionary science and esotericism
Posted on Apr 19th, 2007 by M. Alan

I contune to make slow progress on my first book, which may be called Esoteric Ontology or Integral Metaphysics. I'm mostly working on the description of physical consciousness. This involves incorporating science and philosophy along with esotericism. Most esotericists gloss over the physical, not considering it of much importance. It's assumed that the physical reality is the reality described by science blah blah blah and then we can go straight to the various supra-physical realities. I used to take this position as well. But that opens esotericism to criticism from materialists and more recently from Wilberians.

So I've decided to mention how modern complexity science and the theory of emergent evolution fits in with process philosophy and non-reductionistic evolutionary cosmology (e.g. Aurobindo, Teilhard, etc). Then there's the ”myth of the given” and the nature of physical copnsciousness. Of course all this isn't explained at great length, because I find these over-mental arguments to be tedious. But just a basic mention, so it's acknowledged. Then others can take this discussion further, if they want.

A lot of this - but not everything - has already been covered in my Integral Esotericism essay on Frank Visser's Integral World website. So I'm expanding on what I write there, and also adding some new stuff. Access: Public Add Comment Print Send views (41)