Leaving Integral Behind!

This is a step that many have taken. I remember back in the day, almost twenty years ago, people at Integral Institute were rolling their eyes when somebody used the term 'integral'. I was told they called used the term 'fluffy' instead. Many highly capable individuals spent a few years in the 'scene' and then left to never associate with the terminology again. But maybe that's the point. Maybe the point is not to expect from integral to become your 'tribe' where everyone shares your values and views. And to expect that one will be surrounded only by people one likes. And that one will live together, work together, raise children together and change the world together. Maybe the point IS to pick out a few highly valuable encounters and connections, stick with them and then also go back to normal life, which means making money, working on real-world projects that pay and actually make a difference, raising a family and changing one's discipline from within. I actually know quite a few people who after a time stopped reading or posting in integral forums and using integral language altogether. But they change their own respective discipline from within by applying integral principles and tilting the discourse into more inclusivity. Which means they are back to and doing it basically alone. But it's better to be alone and do something than get lost in endless aimless conversations. And even if you place five individuals who share the exactly same worldview in a room this will not make them productive with each other.

As someone still relatively new to human development models (Integral Theory, Spiral Dynamics, Ego Development Theory, etc), I've been surprised by the desire for a single, go-to community. Subscribing to a single community/philosophy seems like a characteristic of lower vertical development. Higher levels likely dabble across everything in order to be as holistic as possible, multi-/inter-/trans-disciplinary, etc. I see quite a few of the same individuals in many different shared spaces—across Integral, Spiral Dynamics, GameB, Metamodernism, Bildung, Rebel Wisdom, The Stoa, etc. It's less about the place; more about the person. If you take a macro view of vertical development in general, a relatively small percentage of humans are at the higher stages (compared to those currently stuck in conventional stages). Of those, some (but not all) feel compelled to "find the others." Combined with trends in decentralization, I guess I just envision individuals coalescing and cohering around meaningful projects on an as-needed basis (e.g. depending on the need/project, the right individuals with the right levels of vertical development (maturity, perspective, etc) and the right levels of horizontal development (knowledge, skills, etc) at the right time of the zeitgeist) vs subscribing to a single community/philosophy that's expected to do everything for everyone all the time. This seems like it could naturally weed out the problem that Ego Development Theory describes as "Aboutism" (having high horizontal development but low vertical development—like knowing a lot about Integral Theory without actually being Integral). If the right people are "finding the others" (the like-minded, like-principled, like-spirited), then you know who you'd want to work with on specific projects. In a nutshell, it would be higher vertically developed individuals coming together as-needed vs an explicit ongoing community. Yet, perhaps all of this is getting too far ahead of ourselves. The most important thing is probably the further development of the human mind so we have the wisdom to properly handle technology before we self-destruct. So, just getting more of the masses to EDT's "watershed stage," Ken Wilber's "leap to second tier" cultural critical mass, etc is probably the #1 priority. In this case, anyone currently at a higher level should just try to be a guide for those who aren't, share good information, encourage/empower others, etc. That was a lot, but any thoughts on all this?

Best decision ever. Excited to see your next big step, David. All respect! 🙏🏻

Integral has always been an aspiration and it's most certainly not a fait accompli. I have constantly seen the limitations but I also see the striving to consciously grow and share. There is a world of difference between any communities goals and values and what is actually being achieved. I accept these limitations...it's not like there is any other community out there less dogmatic and more capable. Have always appreciated your intellect and contribution David. Hope you find what you are looking for.

I wish you all the best on your journey man!

David , you are an amazing person that inspires me, thanks my dude!

Instead of complaining about how much Ken Wilbers Integral Theory is a poisoned chalice or broken beyond repair, people like Daniel Görtz and others associated with the Metamodern movement should just allocate some of the tasks that they dont want to touch and some Integral Theorist have tried to take on – like creating a context for a post-postmodern Spirituality and Religion – completely to the Integral Ken Wilber crowd – but in a friendly non dismissive way where they would say Metamodernism isn't explicitly about that but also not against the more reasonable attempts of people exploring new horizons of meaning in a post secular age. Metamodernism does Politics, GameB does Economics and Systemstheory, Gebserisanism does Culture and Art, Critical Realism does Science, and Ken Wilber Integral does Education, Psychology, Philosophy, Spirituality and Religion If Daniel Görtz believes that explicitly including a spiritual and/or mystical dimension to the theory will end you in the dungeons of prerational irationality and magical thinking – Just leave it to the Integral people who want to include it and respectfully create your own completely secular version of a post-postmodern wordspace

I was surprised to see this video! I'm sorry your previous community hasn't worked out for you. For what it's worth I enjoyed our chat and would happily do philosophy with you again. You've helped me think through and refine my ideas and I'd like to thank you for that. As an idealist myself, I believe idealism and emergentism should both be held to the same standards. I believe both philosophies should be rationally justified and I believe in the rational discussion.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you create.

could you expound more on wilber corrupting his map with his eastern idealistic perspective? i remember you mentioning something of this in one of your other videos but have been unable to find it. i am currently reading through his work and would like to understand better what you mean. much appreciation for your work

Hi David, I have some questions if I may. To what degree do you think the Integral community is not able to see what you see is because their level of development in growing up is the sole cause hence not up the the task? Would it be true to say that any person who wants to learn Integral in healthy ways must first discover where they are in their stage of growing up? And when they do, must find ways to develop it sufficiently enough so that it does not get in the way of interpreting Integral in unhealthy ways? And what is your perspective on the best way to grow up?

Speaking of not knowing the definitions of words, I’m still waiting on that video about emergence that addresses my questions from minute 1 of our debate last year. Should I keep waiting?

I understand your frustration! I feel very identified, I do appreciate your work

One previous commenter stated they perceived a lack of the revolutionary. I've noted a lack of the radical in general within the integral community. Some of the thinking feels like a slight variation on conventional thought. There is very little good integral debate about issues of racism, injustice, corruption, classism, inequality, etc. I suspect this is because of the limited and privileged demographics of those involved, largely consisting of middle class white professionals in the United States and other Western countries; and within this there is a concentration in specific areas of academia and helping professions. This probably helps explain what I've noticed with large gaps in knowledge. Most integralists don't seem to overly conversant in many important fields: anthropology, linguistic relativity, philology, history, political science, economics, etc. Also, I don't hear much talk about related areas of consciousness studies such as written by E.R. Dodds, Bruno Snell, Julian Jaynes, etc. Or if they know anything about them, it rarely gets discussed in integral communities. Generally, what integralists talk about is philosophy, religion, spirituality, comparative mythology, and psychology; maybe a bit of science with ecology or similar things. It's often rather abstract and speculative. Those topics are worthy and it's what originally drew me to integral theory. But I get bored with the narrowness after a while. It's not merely a lack of criticalness toward integralism itself, although I have come across that. Nor is it about spiritual idealism and woo. It goes deeper than that.

In the comments below, and in the Integral groups in reaction to this video, you will see people talking about me personally and completely ignoring all my criticisms of the community. In their mind if they can act like I’m the problem they can ignore all my points and they don’t have to acknowledge their problems and toxicity, even though I am just one of many people who have pointed out these problems and left the community because of them. This kind of behavior speaks for itself when anyone knows what open honest communication looks like. - which is why I’m done. I brought up the shadow of this community and encouraged it to grow past it, and instead of openly and honestly facing and integrating that shadow they have only demonized it and fought against it. The problem must be me, it can’t be them. When you see your person or your group is not living in integrity and you call them on it they will either get real and be honest, or they’ll call you names and dismiss you. We see what this toxic community does. You’ve probably been or known people who have been in a relationship that’s not working for a long time. Maybe when the problems in the relationship first started the person tried to address those problems calmly and sweetly, reasonably with care, but maybe after a long time of being misstreated and unheard, as they start to feel more and more disrespected, and resentment starts to build, the communication becomes more and more harsh and less and less fucks are given until they reached a breaking point. If my communication is on the blunt and harsh side, which at this point it definitely is, I feel like I actually must be a pretty nice, patient, and loving guy. Though I will admit that when this relationship is with a community and not just a single individual probably some new people end up receiving harsh or more blunt feedback than they deserve because they’re walking into a situation that’s toxic. But even in the face of so much bad treatment I have really tried to be true to my own standards of integrity. I have tried to be straightforward in my communication about what the problem is and how we can fix it and why it’s a problem. I will definitely call out bad behavior but I make it a point to not insult people personally. Unfortunately at a certain point descriptive words about bad behavior start to sound like insults. Like “This is cowardly, shameful, pathetic behavior” I think when people are not heard they become louder and their communication is more harsh to try and get the other persons attention that “this is a serious problem!” But when people want to write you off and act like you’re the problem, this just becomes proof in their mind that You have personal issues and it turns into gaslighting. In an abusive relationship like this a person is either beat into submission or they will eventually leave. I’m glad to be an archetype that represents integral shadow!

The grudge some ppl hold against you lasts much longer than any misgivings‐after‐the‐fact I've ever personally felt towards anyone, including ppl who've literally abused me. They shouldn't be giving anyone interpersonal advice, since that seems to be a big thing is that they don't like your tone.

Do you still suggest people read ken wilber for potential integral people how far should they go then move in your direction

Thank god.

The problem with the integral community is like nobody is integral 😂 who’s integral besides like Layman Pascal, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jordan Hall, Zak Stein etc There’s like a handful of people and like none of them as far as I know are in or active in a lot of these integral communities and groups

Your strength is in critiquing public figures, e.g. Wilber and Peterson. You are great at that. So if you want to continue with Integral Theory, my suggestion would be to use it for critiquing thought leaders, politicians, political systems, government policies, etc. Maybe call it "Applied Integral Theory". People will learn it by example, and they will become less influenced by bad leaders and bad systems. Regarding other issues in this video, your approach to spirituality is to dilute it down to make it part of materialism. Then you dismiss people who have experienced something that seems to be beyond materialism as "woo woo cult members". Indeed, when your beliefs are challenged, you start with your own pre/trans fallacies and descend into a tirade of bizarre projection. So I would suggest that you drop your own materialist beliefs. Why be a materialist or a spiritualist? Both positions make people weak and dependent and easily freaked out.