True but Partial
During the meeting in Starbucks (See "Life Conditions") aside from Spiral Dynamics, we also discussed the Integral Approach. It is a kind of theoretical stance that the late Ken Wilber has been proposing as one of the approaches that can overcome the so-called inter-paradigmatic, values conflicts (When I say "the late Ken Wilber," this means the phase 4 and 5 of Ken Wilber).
In my understanding, this approach was primarily suggested to overcome the nihilistic, extreme value relativism that had been pervaded in the post-modern worldview. The post-modern paradigm or worldview, put it bluntly, is to say that there is no such thing as Truth (absolute truth) but diverse Truths depending on one's value system. In other words, everything is relative and just interpreted by one of the languages in the particular context. Moreover, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Anyone can insist what he or she can believe as right or true. For, everything is relative and merely someone's interpretation.
The advantage of such relativism was of course (as the typical, positive feature of the Green meme) that people could embrace all the diverse values; therefore multiculturalism can insist its own right and meaningfulness. This was the great achievement to overcome a lot of minority-related problems and discriminations derived from the rigid modern scientism that always insisted the universal, objective truth, or derived from the traditional premodern ethnocentrism that always insisted that one's subjective truth was absolutely right.
While the value relativism was one of the great achievements of post-modernism, once it became extreme and deviated, then people in the postmodern had suddenly lost their criteria to see the truth, and then relativism has been transformed into nihilism. Thus, Integral Approach is a kind of alternative stance to solve this extreme relativism or post-modern nihilism. In the Spiral Dynamics term, it is probably a solution to lead people to the Second Tier perspective.
One of the well-known items for this approach is AQAL. This is a kind of matrix that can constructively embrace the coflicts among premodern, modern and postmodern. The matrix is presented as the quadrant form. The Left side is considered as the internal or qualitative approach and the Right side is as the external or quantitative. The Upper level is as the individual or micro approach and the Lower level is as the collective or macro.
More simply each quadrant is: Upper Left is the section of "I" (interior, individual, intentional); Lower Left is the section of "WE" (interior, collective, cultural); Upper Right is "IT" (exterior, individual, behavioral); and Lower Right is "ITS" (exterior, collective, social or system). You can visit this page for the detail.
The point here is that these four sections can cover and constructively embrace all the paradigms from premodern to modern to postmodern.
Let's say, in the premodern paradigm the four sections had not been separated yet; hence the authoritative religiosity such as Western Christianity used to manage all four sections from the individual faith (Upper Left) to the individual behavior (Upper Right) to the community moral ethics (Lower Left) to the institutional system (Lower Right).
And in the modern paradigm these four sections have been differentiated, which means that religion and science have been separated; moreover, science has been freed from religion and religion no longer has to handle the scientific issues such as whether or not the earth / globe is round.
Such differentiation, however, has not yet reconciled the so-called interior/exterior problem – a question like, which approach can lead us the Truth, interior or exterior? This issue is of course the argument between qualitative approach and quantitative approach, or the conflict between hermeneutic approach and positivistic approach. Such argument or conflict can be regarded as the problem between modernism and post-modernism.
While modernism tries to search for the objective Truth (positivistic), post-modernism declares that there is no such thing as objective Truth but Truths that are inter-subjective (hermeneutic). But then, the matrix of quadrant has provided a solution to reconcile this modern / post-modern dichotomy.
In this Integral Approach the post-modern, relativistic stance that embraces everything, is still maintained. One different thing from the post-modern, nihilistic relativism, however, is that it provided the criterion – that is to say, the more integral or integrated, the better.
For example, if there are five values from A to E, then in the extreme relativism all five values are equally right and there should not be any criteria to see which value is better or more appropriate. Thus, there will be idiot embracing or a kind of "I am doing mine; you are doing yours; and we should not care each other" type of nihilism or a kind of "Don't tell me what I do; I do what I like to do" type of me-generation narcissism.
On the other hand, the Integral Approach has the clear criteria that embracing A and B is better than A alone or B alone. And integrating A/B/C is better than integrating A and B alone. That is one clear difference between postmodern relativism and Integral Approach.
Ken Wilber states this approach as follows in his book, A Theory of Everything: "I have one major rule: Everybody is right. More specifically, everybody – including me – has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace, a genuine T.O.E."
In my understanding, this approach was primarily suggested to overcome the nihilistic, extreme value relativism that had been pervaded in the post-modern worldview. The post-modern paradigm or worldview, put it bluntly, is to say that there is no such thing as Truth (absolute truth) but diverse Truths depending on one's value system. In other words, everything is relative and just interpreted by one of the languages in the particular context. Moreover, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Anyone can insist what he or she can believe as right or true. For, everything is relative and merely someone's interpretation.
The advantage of such relativism was of course (as the typical, positive feature of the Green meme) that people could embrace all the diverse values; therefore multiculturalism can insist its own right and meaningfulness. This was the great achievement to overcome a lot of minority-related problems and discriminations derived from the rigid modern scientism that always insisted the universal, objective truth, or derived from the traditional premodern ethnocentrism that always insisted that one's subjective truth was absolutely right.
While the value relativism was one of the great achievements of post-modernism, once it became extreme and deviated, then people in the postmodern had suddenly lost their criteria to see the truth, and then relativism has been transformed into nihilism. Thus, Integral Approach is a kind of alternative stance to solve this extreme relativism or post-modern nihilism. In the Spiral Dynamics term, it is probably a solution to lead people to the Second Tier perspective.
One of the well-known items for this approach is AQAL. This is a kind of matrix that can constructively embrace the coflicts among premodern, modern and postmodern. The matrix is presented as the quadrant form. The Left side is considered as the internal or qualitative approach and the Right side is as the external or quantitative. The Upper level is as the individual or micro approach and the Lower level is as the collective or macro.
More simply each quadrant is: Upper Left is the section of "I" (interior, individual, intentional); Lower Left is the section of "WE" (interior, collective, cultural); Upper Right is "IT" (exterior, individual, behavioral); and Lower Right is "ITS" (exterior, collective, social or system). You can visit this page for the detail.
The point here is that these four sections can cover and constructively embrace all the paradigms from premodern to modern to postmodern.
Let's say, in the premodern paradigm the four sections had not been separated yet; hence the authoritative religiosity such as Western Christianity used to manage all four sections from the individual faith (Upper Left) to the individual behavior (Upper Right) to the community moral ethics (Lower Left) to the institutional system (Lower Right).
And in the modern paradigm these four sections have been differentiated, which means that religion and science have been separated; moreover, science has been freed from religion and religion no longer has to handle the scientific issues such as whether or not the earth / globe is round.
Such differentiation, however, has not yet reconciled the so-called interior/exterior problem – a question like, which approach can lead us the Truth, interior or exterior? This issue is of course the argument between qualitative approach and quantitative approach, or the conflict between hermeneutic approach and positivistic approach. Such argument or conflict can be regarded as the problem between modernism and post-modernism.
While modernism tries to search for the objective Truth (positivistic), post-modernism declares that there is no such thing as objective Truth but Truths that are inter-subjective (hermeneutic). But then, the matrix of quadrant has provided a solution to reconcile this modern / post-modern dichotomy.
In this Integral Approach the post-modern, relativistic stance that embraces everything, is still maintained. One different thing from the post-modern, nihilistic relativism, however, is that it provided the criterion – that is to say, the more integral or integrated, the better.
For example, if there are five values from A to E, then in the extreme relativism all five values are equally right and there should not be any criteria to see which value is better or more appropriate. Thus, there will be idiot embracing or a kind of "I am doing mine; you are doing yours; and we should not care each other" type of nihilism or a kind of "Don't tell me what I do; I do what I like to do" type of me-generation narcissism.
On the other hand, the Integral Approach has the clear criteria that embracing A and B is better than A alone or B alone. And integrating A/B/C is better than integrating A and B alone. That is one clear difference between postmodern relativism and Integral Approach.
Ken Wilber states this approach as follows in his book, A Theory of Everything: "I have one major rule: Everybody is right. More specifically, everybody – including me – has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace, a genuine T.O.E."
Comments