User talk:Joeperez69/List of integral thinkers

List of Integral thinkers

I like the idea of a list of thinkers, but many here do not pertain to Integral Theory as per our definition here. So they should be mentioned instead on the Integral disambiguation page.

Also unless Bill Clinton & Al Gore specifically incorporate Wilber's/AQAL/Integral Theory ideas into their speeches, policies etc, they can be mentioned right at the end in a minor footnote, but should not have such prominence on the page, even appearing before Don Beck (major Integral Theorist). There seems, from my outsider perspective, an unhealthy and rather sycophantic cult of celebrity around and even stemming from Wilber himself (e.g. dropping the names of movie stars who have read him). Ray Harris comments on this (8th paragraph especially), I've read it elsewhere too but don't recall where. So sure you can mention celebrities, with appropriate citations, but it should be only in an appropriate context M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alan. Three points:

• I'm certainly open to rearranging the categories on the page if there's general agreement that integral theorists in academia are the most important category and most useful to the readers of the wiki. I do think Bill Clinton and Al Gore have incorporated integral theory into their work -- did you read the Foreign Policy interview? Wilber is one of only a COUPLE of influences he mentions on an article about his intellectual influences -- but they aren't scholars and therefore leave the jargon out of the speeches. My reasons for putting political figures at the top are: (a) they're the best known and most influential, powerful people to be influenced by integral theory, and (b) they're the most interesting to the reader, who is probably unaware that integral theory has steeped so influentially into the fabric of the US politics. You make a good point about that Wilber critics like Ray Harris have used Wilber's name dropping as a sign of his not being "serious" enough. Harris says, almost verbatim, "What do I care that Keeanu Reeves likes integral theory. He's not an academic, and he's not a very good actor!" But the point of this page is simply to describe "Integral thinkers" and in my mind the only qualifier is notability. I think the current list of "Contemporary Integral thinkers" is sadly too focused on the academics and independent scholars with a strong interest in philosophy and metaphysics, when the bigger picture is that integral has made more of a dent in the popular culture than academia at this point. Is it possible that you are thinking this should be a page called "List of integral theorists" as opposed to "List of integral thinkers" because that's a key difference as I see it. So let's see what others think about the page order here.
• What specific theorists are you thinking should be removed because they are insufficiently Wilberian? Laszlo comes to mind offhand, but even he has admitted to a Wilberian influence even if he is a critic. I'm not sure what you have in mind with regards to adding a list of non-Wilberian thinkers to the disambiguation page, so could you say more? As for others not meeting the definition on the page, I used a pretty broad definition that included both those using/influenced by Wilber as well as some fuzzy words about being influenced more broadly by integral thought, as my thinking (as I stated earlier) is that it is impossible to neatly divide all integral thinkers into Wilberian and non-Wilberian camps, and that it shouldn't be the job of the wiki editor to analyze everyone's writings and determine exactly who their influences are and what "camp" they would ally themselves with, if any. Joeperez69 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
• Would it be acceptable to you to keep this page broadly representative of "integral thinkers" no matter whether that influence was Wilberian or Aurobindian or other, as you have used those terms, but to explicitly acknowledge in the introductory section that there are different uses of integral, including Aurobindian, and that all are included? So in the first sentence where it says, "the philosophy of Ken Wilber" it could be changed to say, "the philosophy of Ken Wilber, the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo, ..." I'm okay with this approach, and adding Aurobindian integralists to the page as it is related, if you think that would address your concerns. Alternatively, perhaps someone could contribute a separate page just with the notable Aurobindian integralists if there isn't already one. Joeperez69 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Hi Joe. I'll try to answer each of your points in turn

Rearranging the categories on the page, also Bill Clinton and Al Gore

Yes you are right Integral Theory/Studies is weighted to academics, but that's not surprising given that it is "theory" or "studies" ;-) But there are also Integral Artists etc who are rightly mentioned on the page, so it isn't all just academics. The question is, why should politicians or ex-politicians be given such a high ranking in the page, if they haven't contributed to Integral Theory or Integral Studies? If any of their speeches or interviews (which i concede i haven't read) contain mention of Wilber, AQAL etc then that can certainly be mentioned and cited, in the same way that movie stars etc are. If it doesn't and no-one but you have noticed the integral aspects, well, what you say may be absolutely true, but unfortunately it's then original research and hence not Wikipedia appropriate.

• My view is that putting the most well-known figures and most powerful figures influenced by Integral Theory is useful & interesting information to the wiki reader, as I stated before. It's definitely NOT original research (see the citations). There are other politicians influenced by Wilber as well (and some claim Karl Rove is influenced by Spiral Dynamics!), but I haven't had the time to track down the verifiable sources for any more yet. Joeperez69 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Specific theorists that are insufficiently Wilberian

Laszlo adopted the phrase "Integral theory" and the idea of a general theory of everything, but uses it in a totally unrelated, hard science context. But as he mentions Wilber he can be listed under Influenced By or some such. But I would include his Integral Theory (Akashic Field) in the disambiguation page, it's not AQAL, perspectives, post-metaphysics, etc

• We COULD add Laszlo's Integral Theory to the disambiguation page because his theory is different from Wilber's, but I do think we are back to the beginning in a sense, though I am sure our disagreements are in good faith and we may need to keep at this discussion until we reach consensus or get helpful feedback from impartial parties. Here is the description on the page as it now stands: "This list of contemporary scholars, writers, academics, politicians, and pop culture figures who are known to have contributed to or been influenced specifically by Integral Theory, the philosophy of Ken Wilber, or integral spiritual thought more generally." I disagree with your conclusion about every single thinker you want removed from this list, and have provided references for each one to show that they are affiliated with integral in the sense that it is specifically defined on the page, so please read it again. It seems what you want is a different definition for the page, which would be something like, "This list of individuals who agree with Ken Wilber's ideas at least 80% as determined by the sole discretion of a wikipedia editor such as myself; any individuals who it cannot be positively determined that this is the case must not be included on this list, but in a separate category altogether." Is this an unfair characterization of your view? We have gone over this issue at length previously, and I didn't hear a useful answer from you or anyone else on how one determines whether specific thinkers (I mentioned Robert Kegan several times) can be divided out of the integral field based on any principle rather than an editor's subjective judgment. I believe the only useful standard that can be applied to a page such as this is whether or not a reliable source has described an author as integrally informed, integrally influenced, influenced by a specific integral thinker such as Wilber or Aurobindo or Laszlo, etc. Based on this criteria, I would remove no individual from the list that you mention. Joeperez69 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
• This is an appropriate place to note that you may have a POV conflict. You have published articles in which you argued to "redefine" the Integral field in a way not widely accepted, and that you have published an article specifically denying the existence of an integral movement altogether. See http://www.integralworld.net/kazlev13.html You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however as I understand it there is no hard data on what the consensus opinion is on the matter, and it's my own impression that yours may very well represent a fringe view that emphasizes the differences among various camps in the movement. (You may know better than I. Is your view a fringe? Or is it widely held?) I have no problem with your position per se, and believe it should be included as an opinion about that topic, but note that with regard to wikipedia it's important to keep the question above all else, "what is most useful to the reader?". In my opinion, this is a very useful list to readers and there are sources cited to indicate how each individual is connected to something called integral.
• Specifically on Laszlo, he has no individual page, so creating a disambiguation category for HIS understanding of Integral Theory and denying him standing in a list of "Integral thinkers" would be odd, and not serving readers as well as keeping him in. I will abide by the consensus though.

Michael Murphy is more affiliated with Aurobindo & Integral Yoga, perhaps there should be a separate page for Aurobindonian influenced. Sure he, Deepak Chopra, and many others are on friendly terms with Wilber and Integral-Institute, and even members of it, but how much have they incorporated. Deepak Chopra is really a New Age writer. Sure Carolyn Myss is interviewed in EnlightenNext, advertsies there, etc, they are on friendly terms, but that doesn't make her ideas "integral" in specific definitions. Not sure where David Deida fits in, i know he is associated with the Integral scene, but is he jumping on the bandwagon or has he incorporated these ideas? I haven't studied his work so i'm not qualified to judge. Even Andrew Cohen does not call himself "integral" - he uses Evolutionary Enligtenment. Although the editors at EnlightenNext certainly seem to identify with integral. Among academics, Swimme, McDermott etc have nothing to do with Integral theory/studies in teh AQAL/Post-Metraphysics context

• Murphy: who is it that decides whether he is more Aurobindian or Wilberian influenced? He *IS* on the board of Wilber's Integral Institute, so why not have him on both if there must be dual lists?
• All of these thinkers are connected with I-I or have some other reliably documented connection to Wilber/Integral Theory. Perhaps this could be resolved if you maintained a separate list of Aurobindian-influenced thinkers, and both lists were offered. Joeperez69 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

So on this page I would only include those like Coombs, Esbjorn-Hargens, Zimmerman, Gidley, McIntosh, Sattler, Visser, yourself, and others who specifically employ this framework or derivations thereof

Perhaps eventually we can set up other pages for related themes - e.g. Epic of Evolution, Global Brain, etc

Keep this page broadly representative of "integral thinkers" no matter whether that influence was Wilberian or Aurobindian or other

This was the original theme obviously. The problem is that it takes us back to square one. I would probably prefer to add a separate page for Aurobindonian-influenced Integralists, and link the two pages, and other similar ones, with eventually all these pages becoming a sort of portal. That was we can keep the basic theme of evolutionary synthesis, but not confuse the very specific and only distantly (if at all) related movements. I still am of the opinion that the spiritual philosophies of Teilhard and Aurobindo are more similar than Aurobindo is to and Wilber (also Teilhard and Wilber I believe to be more similar than Aurobindo and Wilber, despite Wilber's dislike of Teilhard), which does make use of the word "integral" as a catch all nonsectarian term problematic (even though i still like to use it and identify with it!). So perhaps two parallel, linked pages, with Wilber also mentioned on the Aurobindonian page.

How to distinguish the two pages. Perhaps "List of integral thinkers (Integral Studies)" and "List of integral thinkers (Integral Yoga)". I suppose Sorokin and Ray can be listed under the Aurobindo page as they both speak highly of Aurobindo, even though neither has much to do with Sri Aurobindo beyond being inspired by the latter's early idea (in The Human Cycle) of the rise of an Integral society (however the Aurobindonian Gnostic Society is completely different, being based on the manifestation of Supermind (which itself relates to Teilhard's Omega Point)

• Although I am very uncomfortable with this and feel that it both unnecessary and does not serve wikipedia's users well, if there is consensus or broad agreement among multiple editors that your proposal is of merit and not a step in a very dubious direction intended to accomodate a fringe POV in a way that is not warranted by the concerns of wikipedia, then I would support renaming the list "List of supporters of Integral Theory" or "Integral thinkers (Integral Theory)". However, I would definitely want to keep the description of the page AS IS (including the thinkers allied with integral in a loosely defined way), and not limit it specifically in any way that requires a wiki editor to mind read every thinker's mind to determine how friendly they are to Wilber's theory. By doing so, this would let you maintain a separate list if you wished specifically focused on Aurobindians and include any thinker that merited inclusion according to the definition that you wrote for that page. Whether the list was helpful to wiki users being the key criteria. Joeperez69 (talk) Joe Perez

But then where does that leave Steiner or Gebser, both of whom established solid independent bodies of work? This is where writing about the rise of integral Consciousness becomes indistinguishable from writing about the evolution of human consciousness as such. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well let the editor who believes that each of those thinkers' traditions require a separate list make their case, but in the meantime I maintain that a wiki editor cannot be expected to divide thinkers described as integral up into separate camps, and am perfectly willing to accept you maintaining a separate list for Aurobindian supporters and use whatever criteria was appropriate (subject, of course, to the usual back-and-forth among editors to be sure that the page served wikipedia's interests), just so the "List of Integral thinkers (Integral Theory)" article is free to include all the thinkers that are on the list now, unless of course evidence is brought forward that the thinker is NOT connected with integral in any way. I just don't see any practical way of maintaining the list otherwise, lest there be continual debate for each and every addition as to whether they were "integral enough" or "Wilberian enough". This is really an area where the expertise of wiki editors especially with no close association with the integral movement is crucial, and I will respect their contributions. Joeperez69 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

• View from 100 feet. Overall: Alan Kazlev and I disagree over the most useful direction for categorizing a very general list of integrally supportive or influential thinkers and figures. I believe he supports dividing all integral folks by which "historically influential thinker" (Wilber, Gebser, Aurobindo, etc.) they are allied with. I believe that (a) most individuals are influenced by multiple thinkers, so this is impractical, and (b) often this requires too subjective a judgment call from an editor, and could lead to turf wars and constant contention that wouldn't serve wiki well. I could also add that (c) there is no universal consensus (i.e., clearly defined denominations) on lineage, only articles written by Alan and a few other individuals proposing to divide the integral movement into different camps, so even if a categorization scheme such as Alan's were practical it would not be consistent with wiki's neutral POV requirement. Integral is not a religion that can be divided into sects or denominations with non-denominational figures on the side--and even if it is arguably becoming something like that, it certainly isn't wikipedia's role to determine the denominational differences. My proposal is to divide integral thinkers instead by categories such as (a) politicians, (b) academics, (c) writers and independent scholars, (d) pop culture figures, etc., rather than their "lineage". I would prefer that such a page be titled "List of integral thinkers" because this is how they are commonly referred; however I could accept a page titled "List of integral thinkers (Integral Theory)" if that is the consensus view.Joeperez69 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

What qualifies for membership on this page?

hi Joe

looks like we're butting heads again!

Sure everyone has many influences, but then why have categories at all? The question is, where is the primary influence. I was under the impression that we had agreed that Integral Theory is reserved for an AQAL/Post-metaphysical position and influences and developments therof. Maybe Wilber calls Sri Aurobindo a theorist, but he is the only one to my knowledge who ever does. You won't find a single student, disciple, or scholar of Sri Aurobindo who has ever called him a theorist. Of course if you can provide references to the contrary I am open to changing my position :-) So Integral theory is better associated with people like Wilber, Esbjorn-Hargens, etc, and the worldview, methodologies and academic tradition they espouse, and those influenced by them. This is not to deny someone can be listed under both Integral Theory and Integral Yoga.

re the position of the political figures on the page (which i think is perhaps the biggest disagreement between us; the other points i can see myself coming around to, if you can answer the concerns i raise), i have no problems including them as per your refs (i would also include Karl Rove as per Don Beck connection, and any others), just I disagree that they should have the priority position, since they are not original theorists. Do you think Clinton or Gore have each made a bigger contribution to integral theory then Don Beck, Allan Combs or Steve McIntosh? I'm not denying the importance these men had and have in public life. Only their importance as regards this particular topic. e.g. Ronald & Nancy Reagan were strong supporters of astrology. Should they go on a page on contemporary astrology (assuming we had one, the link is to a section) above Dane Rudhyar or Liz Greene or for example? (btw, like Richard Tarnas I support intelligent astrology, i'm just mentioning this as an example). This is the basis of my objection.

Re Integral Institute, I would argue that a distinction should be made between

• those affiliated with the I-I (Murphy, Chopra, etc), are interviewed there, are friends of Wilber, but don't specifically take on board his ideas (unlike Clinton and Gore), and
• those who have incorporated and built upon AQAL etc but may (e.g. Esbjorn-Hargens) or may not (e.g. McIntosh, or Sattler) be associated with the I-I.

(of course there would also be those who are somewhat intermediate between the two groups, i'm not denying a gradation, and i would put them in one or the other of the categories). From your reply to my previous comments I get the feeling you would seem to disagree with this approach.

But to make one of things that would allow listing on this page (Integral Theory, Integral Studies) is that the person is (a) a friend of Ken or affiliated with I-I and (b) who has also published books on any subject (science, philosophy, New Age) even if those subjects have nothing to do with Wilber's philosophy, seems pretty silly to me.

I'm not saying these people can't be listed and their contributions noted, but this can be better put on the Integral Institute page. After all, it is association with the Integral Institute that is being referred to here

Here's an example. At one point Michel Bauwens was associated with wilber & (iirc) I-I, so as an important contemporary thinker he would certainly deserve to be included here. Later he became a critic of Wilber. Does that mean he is no longer an Integral Theorist?

Or to be put it another way:

• What qualifies for membership on this page? What does someone have to do to be considered an Integral Theorist?
• And what citations would be used for that qualification? And why?

If you can answer these questions, we can move on from there M Alan Kazlev (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alan. Well I think a big difference is mainly in how we see the page. I organized it, and added figures to the existing list from the Integral movement page, based on the following definition:

This list of contemporary scholars, writers, academics, politicians, and pop culture figures who are known to have contributed to or been influenced specifically by Integral Theory, the philosophy of Ken Wilber, or integral spiritual thought more generally.

so you see, based on that definition, your questions don't really need answering because this isn't a list of Integral Theorists. Nor is it a list of "people who have reached the turquoise stage of consciousness as defined by Ken Wilber", for that matter. Nor is it a list of people who are friends of Ken Wilber or members of I-I, but simply a list of notable figures with a connection to either Wilber or integral thought or spirituality broadly defined. As I've said repeatedly, I don't believe it's practical to organize a list by lineage, nor could any division by lineage be neutral in POV. I take it you would be more comfortable with a list just of theorists who could be pegged into a lineage. However, as I said earlier, integral is a much broader phenomenon than metaphysicians and theorists in ivy towers.

So let me rephrase your question:

*What qualifies for membership on this page? What does someone have to do to be considered for inclusion?

My answer, from before:

But the point of this page is simply to describe "Integral thinkers" and in my mind the only qualifier is notability... I believe the only useful standard that can be applied to a page such as this is whether or not a reliable source has described an author as integrally informed, integrally influenced, influenced by a specific integral thinker such as Wilber or Aurobindo or Laszlo, etc. Based on this criteria, I would remove no individual from the list that you mention.

To be clear, even IF the page is named "List of integral thinkers (Integral Theory)" I would include even thinkers who are critical to Wilber or who trace their lineage more to another tree (e.g., Aurobindians), because of the mutual influence of all the integral schools with each other, because it isn't practical for wiki editors to subjectively discriminate thinkers into schools, and because it's the only neutral POV structure that works for the material. Hence, I would prefer that the page not be retitled with (Integral Theory) because that could be a little misleading in the eyes of some folks such as yourself who are skeptical that there is a single integral movement, no matter how loosely defined.

Regarding the order of the categories, I don't think it's important to prioritize original theorists over far more notable public figures with much more power. Your analogy to astrology is helpful. Wiki has a "List of astrologers" but not a "List of notable believers in astrology". Nancy Reagan could be listed in the latter category prominently, if there were reliable sources, and should definitely be listed prominently in such a category, I imagine. My preference is to list the most notable and interesting thinkers at the top of the page because it's useful for wiki readers, but I'll go with whatever the consensus among editors is. Joeperez69 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Afterthought: Maybe the list should be better titled, "List of integral thinkers and supporters" to be clear that it's not intended as a list of theorists. Joeperez69 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Hi Joe. I like your suggested name change. Actually before logging on I was going to suggest this page be divided into two - "Integral thinkers" (for academics and theorists) and "People influenced by Integral theory" (for artists, politicians, etc), but the name change addresses that problem so I'm happy to leave it as one page. (also taht avoids the problems of people who may be in overlapping categories, as well as avoiding unnecessary additional pages)

And while we do have different philosophical takes on how to define integral, whether it is one movement or many etc etc (and that's all good too), I like your reply. So my feeling now is to step back and give you space to work on the page and see how it develops, and also to see if anyone else has any comments to make. So, all yours! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Just a quick note to add that I've now found Talk:Ken_Wilber/Archive_3 where there has been some discussion of whether to include a quote by Bill Clinton on the Ken Wilber article, and that discussion seems relevant. Goethean, Dseer, and Backface agreed it was relevant, ForrestLane42 thought it should be deleted as self-promotional and name-dropping. I can see how putting the "World leaders and politicians" at the top might be seen as overly promotional, yet still it is probably the single most interesting thing about this page, so my vote is to put it at top & I will go with the consensus. Joeperez69 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

well i've obviously had my say on where pollies should go in the page, so i'll leave it to other editors and the wikipedia consensus.

re the Clinton quote i agree it should be included on this page M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)