Is the Integral Theory a form of Extensionalist Philosophy?

[Anansasem]

Is the Integral Theory a form of 'Extensionalist' Philosophy?

I don't fully understand Exensionalist Philosophy, though it seems basely similar to The Integral Theory. I don't see any differences except in a few abstract terms of context.

I'm confused by this, so I'm hoping that someone here more 'learned in the ways of the world' can explain the relation of the two?

[Dialectic]

I think you mean "Existentialist." "Extensionalist" is a linguistic term which I don't really understand. It has to do with semantics and cognitive linguistics.

Existentialism is a philosophical approach which deals with choice and meaning. We are free to choose our own paths and are responsible for creating meaning in our lives.

"Integralism," or Integral Theory, can best be understood as an INDEX of KNOWLEDGE. It is an approach which honors and incorporates all forms of human knowledge and "indexes" them, or ties them all together by showing how they relate to one another, in two basic ways:

1. By classifying knowledge as subjective or objective.
2. By acknowledging levels of cognitive and moral depth, thereby recognizing that some truths only hold true at certain phases of one's life or one's society's development.

Neither of these points is particularly novel, but Wilber is the first to tie these, and their many, many implications, together. I would recommend "A Theory of Everything" by Ken Wilber if you're interested.

[howstrange]

thereby recognizing that some truths only hold true at certain phases of one's life or one's society's development.



Can you give an example of this?

thanks.

[Dialectic]

In terms of discussing developmental phases and phase-specific "truths," we've been doing this since I first mentioned Integral on this site. Browse almost any of the threads here to get an idea of what types of discussions have occurred.

I'll try to keep jargon to a minimum in this explanation.

Individuals and groups go through phases of development. Physically, a person starts out as an infant, grows into a young child, then an adolescent, than an adult, then an old adult. These changes are accompanied by psychological growth as well.

When you're an infant you're at maximum selfishness, since to you, the whole world revolves around you, and you try to get what you want whenever you want. (Some people think babies exist in a state of universal love and spiritual union with the world, which is simply not true. Imagine an adult who actually acted like a baby. This adult would be considered psychotic.)

As a young child, you understand that there are boundaries to your power and will, but you begin to identify with other human beings, like your parents, and believe them to be all-powerful and all-knowing.

As an adolescent you begin to form your individual self-sense and start testing boundaries of power and identity.

As an adult your self-sense becomes largely formed, and generally in Western society, you can relate to more than just your family or tribe: you can relate to your "people," be they your nationality, race, culture, or religion. You have EXTENDED your identity to them.

Hopefully, if you're fortunate enough, you'll extend your identity to all peoples (and care for all people as a result, becoming a citizen of the world and not just of a nation or tribe), and then after that, to the entire manifest universe itself (including that timeless, spaceless "space" where all manifest things arise, a realization which is enlightenment, put very briefly).

This happens also with civilizations. They become less selfish, more inclusive, more sophisticated, and more complex as they grow (assuming they aren't wiped out, as is the case with individuals as well).

At every phase of this development, one believes in different truths. Some examples in individuals:

Infant. I am the world, the world is me, I am the most important thing in the world, because I can't tell the difference between the world and me.

Young child. My parents know everything, and they can do everything. My family is the best.

Adolescent. Fuck you, you don't know what's best for me. I'm my own person, I can make my own choices. Society is sick. My parents are idiots. Fuck the system.

Adult. You can't change the world. I'm just one person. The world is a complicated place. There's good and bad in everything. It is what it is.

Old adult. Relax. Take time to enjoy. We all go the same way.

This is a very, very simple explanation. These things are also intimately related to the development of morals, religion, cognition (the ability to take view points and create hypotheticals), reason, spirituality, everything.

So when you come on a piece of knowledge, or a process through which you can acquire knowledge, it's useful to know two things:

1. Whether the approach is largely objective (like hard science), subjective (like literary interpretation), or integrative.

2. What depth, or phase of development, this knowledge is coming from. Is it a tribal view, like "It's a dog-eat-dog world, take what you can get," or a fundamentalist view, like "God is great, and if you don't believe in Him you'll burn," or multicultural view, like "All religious beliefs are equally valid and are relatively true from their root cultures."

This ability to index knowledge and approaches in your own mind makes you a deeper, wiser, and more compassionate person, as you come to realize that everybody and everything has something to say, and one should attempt to honor and incorporate as much of the world into your own heart and mind as you can (while still, of course, cutting through the bullshit).

[howstrange]

In terms of discussing developmental phases and phase-specific "truths," we've been doing this since I first mentioned Integral on this site. Browse almost any of the threads here to get an idea of what types of discussions have occurred.

I think this is the first time I've heard the word "truth" used in this context so it threw me off, especially since one tends to view "truth" as absolute knowledge that is gained as one closes towards enlightenment( or reaches the upper stages of development), not something used in relativistic way.
As an aside, can the integrative process be described as a progression from a self centered viewpoint towards a more world-centric consciousness. It seems the more I study it the more it seems that way. I've discussed this with a coworker who's heavily into integral theory and he kind of agreed.

[Dialectic]

I understand what you mean by the use of "truth." I'm used to referring to two types of truth, the relative and the absolute. Relative truths are still true, but only within limited contexts. What's true for a Chinese person may not be true for a white American, and what's true for a young child may not be true for a senior.

Absolute truths apply across all contexts and cultures. Something like "everything ends" would be an absolute truth.

Rather than use the term "integrative process," we can simply use "development," or more specifically, the development of morals and cognition, or identity. And yes, the process of development involves may be described as becoming less "self-centered" in the commonly used sense of that word. We may more accurately view it a process of "self-expansion," where one's sense of identity encompasses more and more as one matures. As I explained above, it would eventually encompass all humans, then all beings, then all existence.

Keep in mind that Integral Theory and Practice is not just about development. It also emphasizes finding truths through various universal points of view, like third person "it" (objective), second person "you" (which creates a "we," or intersubjective) and first person "I" (subjective) which cannot be reduced to each other. This is why the "quadrants" of I, we, it, and its exist to clarify how knowledge might be classified.

[Dannyboi83]

Dialetic

I have always wanted to ask you this question. What was your major in college? Was it philosophy or psyc by any chance. And secondly are you a college professor? I ask this because i have always been impressed with your insight or perspective and your ability to work with abstract concepts and terms with relative ease.
Hopefully I can get to the point where I will be able to fully understand such scholarly language.

[Dialectic]

Hey db,

Haha, actually I did a business degree in my undergrad, about the furthest you could get away from academia (though business profs hate it when you say that), and I don't have a Masters or Ph.D. I've done all my true learning on my own, reading religious stuff, philosophy, psychology, and because I'm "self-taught" there are gaps in my knowledge, but I'm smart enough to get by or fake it, which is what most educated types do anyway.

I've read a bunch of supposedly "sophisticated" material, been to a Ph.D. defense, met a lot of supposedly smart, and certainly well-qualified people, and I tell you totally honestly, I view degrees as almost meaningless. There are a lot of morons out there who think they're smart because their papers and profs told them so.

It's not hard to learn stuff and get used to weird terminology, you just have to want to do it. It doens't even have to take up that much of your life, especially if you're still a student and have a lot of time. I'm spending a ridiculous amount of time these days reading Transformers news and playing Final Fantasy XII.