tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401106149239386272.post1242976191100098914..comments2023-07-05T07:57:15.132-07:00Comments on AQALBlog: What Is "Integral"?Marty Kellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11592136716581562644noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401106149239386272.post-83534993404695653912015-12-09T10:04:22.249-08:002015-12-09T10:04:22.249-08:00Thanks for the comments, and I submit myself to yo...Thanks for the comments, and I submit myself to your Gravesian discipline. However, the point of the essay is to lay out how I perceive "integral," whether Graves had a system or not, and regardless of any errors in describing it. You actually illustrate my point that there is much confusion among the integralites about what we might effectively mean by "integral." <br /><br />Thus perhaps you notice that I now eschew using the word in any context other than in the cognitive line of development, and seek to use the term "transpersonal" to describe all realms in which identity transcends "I = my personal bodymind." Nowhere in that realm does the individual disappear; rather that identity as distinct becomes the object of awareness rather than the subject. Even the Christ knew himself as an individual but certainly did not identify as such; "the Father and I are one" is a pretty explicit transpersonal statement.<br /><br />As a side note, I get the SD notion that in development the Spiral swings from individual to collective expressions of the memes; I just don't find that all that important. Perhaps it is in the practical matter of dealing humans with one another, but given the amazingly chaotic expression that Spirit is currently manifesting, I'm happy just to distinguish "me" awareness from "us" awareness.<br /><br />And when are we having the Scotch/cognac?Marty Kellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11592136716581562644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401106149239386272.post-46548117115336297272015-12-08T13:17:11.841-08:002015-12-08T13:17:11.841-08:00Dear Marty, Geesh, where do I start in contending...Dear Marty, Geesh, where do I start in contending against your errors? I'll take the easy path and nail the two easiest ones: 1) Graves did not provide us with one more line of development, the values line. That is a Wilber invention. Graves provided us with levels of existence and these are much more inclusive than Wilber's reduction of them leaves us with. Yes, you will see "values" used by Beck, and sometimes even by Graves, but read Graves closer and you will see he usually calls them "levels of existence" and very intentionally has included all that the existentialists and phenomenologists of his time were attending to. 2) Yellow is not a WE orientation. It is fair to claim that Yellow is Transpersonal, but that doesn't take one directly to "we". It takes one to an experience of BEING that is not limited by personal identity of the earlier, ego type. It is much more illustrative of the Yellow phenom to call this new level "non-local self". Even if everyone claiming Yellow were telling the truth, there is someone still there claiming Yellow. You can't objectify this Yellow Self, but surely whoever we assert is at Yellow, is still a very definable, individual. It is understandable that one would take the jump from "Not-I" to "we", but the obvious error there is that "we" is just a collective person, and not beyond identity at all. You are on to something though, and Turquoise is where your attribution of "we" as an existential experience belongs. I suggest you read Never Ending Quest closely, and note that the transcribed reports of Yellow thinkers do not read like they are "we" or transpersonal. You've made a heroes effort at extending Graves and will leave us with errors that should move this inquiry forward nicely. Thank you. <br />Tom C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01551129542646481162noreply@blogger.com