Regarding the new video by David Long regarding “Davidian Integral v. Wilberian Integral”, I think it’s worth a look-see for any serious integralist. If you know basically where David’s coming from already, there’s nothing too surprising. And if you’re new to David’s “emergentist revolutionary integral”, then it’s a good introduction.

I’m not going to critique David tonight, if only because I’m getting a feel for wearing an Integral Minister’s collar rather than a social critic’s fierce pen more often than before. I feel David’s sincerity and passion, and I think he speaks for a number of good people. Basically, Davidian integralism shares a lot of the same tone and spirit as metamodernism, but with the “Integral” label intact.

There’s a way in which he takes the virtues of Teal/Yellow – its passion for evolution and self-improvement, its faith in reason and its skepticism of mysticism, and its love of maps of reality – and takes them to their logical end-point. It’s extremism about a philosophy that (owing to its balancing and harmonizing tendencies) usually prefers the middle of the road.

Nothing wrong with any of that. David’s one of the rare critics of Wilber who actually builds on AQAL rather than foisting one of the other more common and unsavory critical moves (e.g., picking apart one thing and claiming the entire ball of string has unraveled, or replacing an adequate set of distinctions with another set of similarly adequate distinctions and then claiming to have radically overturned it in favor of a New Paradigm). So I find that much about Davidian integral appealing and welcome as well.

Now, having said that much in appreciation, let me suggest the direction that I would want to take a future dialogue with David. It comes down to the point I made last week about “Integral at a Crossroads”. That division is basically between Teal/Yellow and Teal/Yellow Minus integralists going one way(s) while Turquoise and Turquoise Plus integralists going another way(s).

My question for Davidians to ponder: Do they, with the metamodernists, plant their flag in Teal and then shout “Death to Turquoise!!!” (no exaggeration, they wrote that). Or will they make room for expanding their understanding of all the core elements of their philosophy (e.g., evolution, reason, skepticism, anti-mysticism, etc.) and thus pass the “abyss” that divides Teal from Turquoise? Or will they find another approach that does not fit into this binary option?

It’s possible for me to say much the same thing without reference to evolutionary altitudes at all. Put bluntly, will the Davidians insist on holding onto their own (expanded, more skeptical, ‘Wilber lite’) philosophy and continually accrete new elements onto it until the Davidian videos in 2020 will have twice as many elements, all united by that one thing that makes it stick together — call it the ‘rational, meta-systemic ego’? Or will their ‘rational, meta-systemic ego’ get dethroned, to be replaced by nothing in particular — e.g., the ‘abyss’ at the opening to Construct-Aware consciousness, which I call the Gate of the Global-Mind?

Although in some areas of spirituality I have a gift of prophecy, I will not stretch myself to guess how the emergentist integralists will evolve in the future. Perhaps much will depend on how well they have absorbed postmodernism’s gift of deconstruction and purified it of its detriments.

If the Longfollowers (ha ha) can take from postmodernism a great but gilded skepticism, they may be able to “bracket” Integral philosophy deeply enough to trust that they can let it go and allow the Global-Mind to take over. Global-Mind welcomes new comers but allows entry with no map, no theory, no single philosophy (no matter how well congealing). One flies over the abyss naked or not at all. If the Longfollowers can let the Davidian Integral maps go too, then the Gate to the Global-Mind might open for them.

Facebook Comments

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here