Beyond Wilber's Basic Integral OS (IOS)--On further reflection

Well...I read the 40 page recommended PDF in the II forum.  There are more advanced IOSs available.  This helped a lot.  At least as a refresher.  Lots of good detail as a basic statement of the basic premise.  now that I think I see the strengths of the system, I think I see clearly the weaknesses. If their 40 page statement is anything to go on.

With Lines, Levels, States, and Types within a very elegant 4 quadrant experience, Wilber has developed quite an advanced system.  A really beautiful way to see and interpret the world.  I think I appreciate the elegance of the system, the rationale, etc.  And I believe it is definately useful.  Wilber is personally, to date, one of the most influencial figures, teachers for me.  

One problem is though, that it is something we must adopt.  Sort of a radical approach.  Everything 'within' this free for us to create, but the imposition of the IOS is more than I can accept personally even though I find these things as useful.  And the way that we operate as humans, that which is adopted and useful must be very fully seen to be swallowed.  We internalize based on degrees of certitude.  the model is absolutely useful.  But...not only is it something to be adopted and integrated into our already extant system, it really speaks little to how to deal with the great glut of incoming information in a more organic, on the fly, construction of an evolving structure.  And this is only part of the problem.

How well is Integral Theory helping us assimilate the vast amounts of data in an age of information glut?  It isn't.  Other than providing a nice framework to hang things on, it is an outside imposed structure with no personal history or personal development to give it deeper relevance and a deeper meaning and I believe it accounts for less than it claims in total experience, esp as we consider the problems inherent in balancing so many things in life itself.  It is silent to this, silent to how to absorb vast quantities of information, and largely silent on learning theory, assimilation, and memory.  Very interesting since development is the cornerstone to the theory (and from what i understand, the other grand emphasis is on having a structure to help create access to personal resources though I think it totally misses in relating how developing further highly meaningful structures really assists in accessing resources and the opposite facet, informaton integration for later solid retrieval).   I'm sure you might find a few things concerning the psychological aspects of learning, but...i would hope to see a theory have a great enough sophistication to have a more complete front end.   From what I can see, Integral focus is on clearing the way through shadow work, etc.  But not much on the building and constructing process.  how do we assemble insights?  What do we do with all the insights?  Clearly, if we find a way to meaningfully integrate them into some larger structure, we will clear the way for further growth, and the interconnectedness will also clearly lend to deeper understanding and further connections.  Kinda cool that way. 

And i do personally find seeing the world through internal and external modes as useful.  We also want to have other associated things come up as we move along in our daily routine.  Each setting we find ourselves in calls for all sorts of various setting acoutrements to arise through association.  any discussion we have, on the fly, will call forth all sorts of associations.  What do we know about social encounters, friendships, relationships, etc.

Furthermore, I believe the ability to digest and manage information into deeper and deeper more meaningfully simplifying structures is the key to consciousness expansion because it allows the very 'access' to resources that the AQAL model boasts.  And in a more organic fashion as it is developed fully from within in a piecemeal fashion.

Without developing deeper and deeper belief, true integration does not happen.  What is required is authority.  however, no longer trusting in the verasity of a school system or cultural subgroup it is WE who become the author of our own story.  Great times, but also difficult.  So...we turn to scientific methodologies and ever more rigorous means of making deeper and braoder meaning.

My biggest gripe is in information processing or meaning making and the assimilation which is at the core of growth.   As meaning develops, so do we. Rather than a model to structure the world, I favor a model to discover structure which can be internalized.  Integral Theory removes itself from creating knowledge insight of AQAL, but I am wondering if even having a model such as this is too much of an imposition and that what we should focus on is just as the Buddha had which is one's on development.  Not that discussing and comparing models is not a very useful thing, as the Tibeten buddhists do through hours of daily debate and convesation, but that there is a very important principal to development I believe is that we must go through a process, ourselves, of verification and then internalization.  And this is based on the age old system that is in our genes of development based on a solid belief system.

I am most cocnerned about the moment. Something so organically and well constructed, that great access to knowledge AND internalization of new information is gained.  My big emphasis of being and becoming.

I am very excited about the new burgeoning integral consciousness and beyond.   I also think Wilber's model really is an interesting attempt at creating the necessary structure to support further development.  We ARE in a very wonderful time of coelecense and integration of essentials.  But....I tend to think we are at a greater beginning of integral theory and would like to take the great assemblage of integral wisdom Wilber, et al are assembling and integrate it into my own worldview, from scratch.  Which is of course, my choice and nothing is forced. 


I guess my emphasis would be on and in the moment and growing awareness in the moment.  Balance itself requires awareness.  While IOS emphacises access to resources, which I fully back, those resources will be tucked away and hidden if we cannot master a certain balance.  Balance is the key, is it not, to sensing our fullest universe? And IOS does touch on this, but not so much on the fly I feel.  I've tried quite a bit of meditating, only to find that the world was something to deal with.  My emotions were still things to deal with.  where are we on this?

 I feel, for example, an integral approach would really emphacise our emotions and trying to understand or recognize them.  The key here is awareness, not understanding. If we resist the notion of perfect 'understanding' we can at the very minimum populate our personal universe with more and more things, learn to encapsulize and synthecise and integrate meaningfully, and then create a setting, in the depth of the moment, that provides a strong environment for those things.

Emotions are culturally universal experiences.  I just don't understand why there isn't a giant tab at the top of their site to jump into them.  I think they are that important.  hmm...it's the best we can do in discussions about emotions is, I love you, or 'you made my day' etc.  No analysis really.  interesting though huh.  What a travesty to 'analyse' emotions.  Sacraligeous even!  But not.  When I feel jealousy, it's much nicer knowing what it is, looking at where it came from, and then being able to dive down and deal with it.  Understanding the whole complex, including the personal insecurity from which it sprang.  and I KNOW I am only scratching the surface here.

I remember on Integral Naked a treatment of guilt.  And one on response-ability.  Maybe a little on anxiety (and anger was brought up in this context.  as a part of psychotherapy and the subconscious).   why not categorize into a domain and structure emotions in a better way.  What is the function of jealousy, anger, fear, happiness, love, etc.  Each of those things are very complicated and interrelated.  Wouldn't THIS help a person balance through an understanding and recognition of how the self is talking to us?  Aren't these often an accompaniment to present moment awareness?

If we are to have access to all our resources, don't we have to deal with the inner environment of emotion so that it doesn't swamp us?  can't we look at them as a constellation of interrelated and complete universal integral meaning?  Yes...we can meditate and other exercises, but emotions are still there.  Couldn't we fill a book in a day on the topic of love?  What about jealous as a response to insecurity?  Then....we find we must examine our basic insecurity.  Surely we can discuss these things.  There are MANY great things which can be said about all the interrelationships, causes, distinctions within emotions, like love for example, or anger.  what DOES bliss feel like?

I've always benefited from working with organizational structures to simplify, connect, and make greater and greater meaning.  I fully inclusive approach needs to do this. 

I guess I'm finding that my notion of integrality veers greatly in that i am assembling and organizing the extant depths of MY knowledge.  what *I* have explored and found and integrated.  IOS and the integral institute is a part of that integration.  A great part.   Am I talking about differing opinions on 'meaning'.  Or what is meaningful.  i am definately differing on systems theory and information processing.

To me, Integral is a VERY large word.  I like to think of it more in terms of an attempt.  So large it may as well be IMHOI.  In My Humble Opinion Integral. 

In other words, it's a little presumptuous to make the claim itself.  And the headiness of that position is perhaps imbalanced in and of itself.

So...I am an integralist.  I am only making a humble attempt at bringing together and systemetizing the vast array of what can be known and assembled in a meaningful way (which means organic)