romansh

hmmn ..... can you get fundamental integralists?

I suspect this place is full of nonINTPs?
I would have read a whole bunch of stuff that probably would not interest me before I could understand a word of what is being said....

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

There is three comments I'd add.

First, the label 'religion' is a broad term that includes much. There are aspects of religion that don't require faith. I've argued before around here about non-rational experiences.

Second, science(rational) and religion(non-rational) aren't entirely and clearly distinct. Many scientists have made discoveries or come to answers through visions and dreams. Also, many scientists also have religious beliefs, and some of them are driven to understand the world because of their 'faith'.

Third, there are premises of science that aren't testable at present. We are barely beginning to even figure out how to think about consciousness, but its still mostly outside of limits of science. Even something like the placebo effect that has been much researched is still not understood. We don't even have an objective way to measure placebo effect as it by definition is the subjective factor that interferes in research. Using it as a control is just a way of aknowledging it because it can't be ignored, but using it as a control doesn't control it. Research has shown that research itself acts as a placebo effect.

Even some aspects of religion require reproducability or else are open to reproducability(such as research into meditation and mental states, and research into intercessory prayer). And not all aspects of scientific theory allow for reproducability(such as the Big Bang).

Integral theory includes models that have been developed based on research. But it also includes areas that haven't yet been studied by science at all or not fully. So, some of it is reproducable and some of it isn't... for the time being. Anyways, integralists desire reproducability.

Integral theorists include a wide span of different types of people, but tends to attract people who are widely read in philosophy, psychology, religion, and science. Integral theory is just a very loose coalition of people who see the world in a similar manner. To be integral basically means that one prefers to see how things are related and are willing to intelligently consider many possibilities. Integralists argue as much as atheists, but it seems to me that integralists have a wider base of knowledge than most atheists. A significant number of integralists accept Wilber's models to varying degrees and Wilber's work acts as a common framework around which debate occurs.

Do you mean fundamentalist integralists? If so, I suppose you might... but not many. If by fundamental you mean overly self-certain, then you can find people like this in any field. I've been on many atheist discussion boards, and many atheists annoy me with their lack of desire to question their assumptions and opinions. Its just human nature to latch onto some particular viewpoint.

If I were to guess, I'd think there is a high number of NTs in the integral field. They are an extremely analytical and argumentative bunch. However, there is probably a closer balance between NTs and NFs than you'd find on an atheist dicsussion board. IIDB, for instance, is something like 70% NT according to a thread poll I saw there.

Tell me what interests you and I'm sure I could find something. Integralists by natrue write about almost anything and everything. There are plenty of atheist integralists, but integralism in general tends towards agnosticism. However, there are some religious integralists although not of the fundamentalist variety.

Integral theory is a very complex field. There are some basic theory and terminology that is very helpful to understand first. The best intro to the field is probably Ken Wilber, but he isn't to everyone's taste.

Og

This is because he was a student. It's just like in photography. You learn the rules of composition and you follow them to make technically perfect pictures. Only then can you intentionally break the rules to make them good.

Physicists are, all the time, and every day, thinking up new ways of explaining how the world works given that the current theory (i.e. quantum and general relativity) do not play well together.

There is NO such dogma as the author would have you believe. Science is about describing coherence in the universe. If there is no coherence then their meter reads as such and you have incoherence. So what? This is not a limiting factor as the author stated at the beginning of the article.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Hey Marm, it is actually easy if we keep it simple.

The sum of the parts equals the whole. Very elegant.

This matches the observations so far of science. The truth is unknown to us so the best we can do is continue collecting all the data. I am sure the bell curve will solve it for most of us. The ends are to shallow, this is where a fundie resides; the rest of us will be in the middle.

I will not jump in with both feet yet is because I am waiting to see the limits it will have to set. From zero to infinity just doesn’t seem to be practical for humans yet. Churches need a critical mass to become useful and if we are pulled in to many directions that mass wont be reached. I do not believe this mass can be reach if there is not some type of common thread running through integral theory.

AB517

This is because both sides are misusing the words for comparisons to strengthen there view.

More like:
A scientific theory = a religion

Yes, they are very different too, I was just pointing out the misuse

marmalade

Fundamentally, the integral view is very simple and intuitively makes sense(to me). I have a simple reason for being interested in integral theory. I have many interests and I like people who also have many interests. The fact that integral theory attracts intelligent people also helps.

On the other hand, I do appreciate that integral theory can include complexity. But I do think the overarching theory that includes this complexity is itself fairly simple. Simply put(in Wilberian lingo): 'AQAL' - All Quadrants, All Levels... which translates(in normal language): there are many different perspectives in life which aren't inherently in conflict, and understanding others perspective is as important as understanding your own.

I tend to believe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but same basic idea.

This is why I see integral theory valuable. It helps clarify what we know and don't know, what we can and can't know. It points in the directions of where further data needs to be collected. It gives us a framework in which to analyze the different parts of reality and to sense out how they relate.

What do you mean by this?

What kind of limits are you referring to?

I'm not sure what you mean by zero to infinity, but I think integral theory is extremely practical. You've been on an integral discussion board which emphasizes the theoretical. You might be more interested in integral practice. There is at least one book and some websites about this that are very popular. Its called Integral Transformative Practice(ITP). Actually, the person who started that discussion board is part of a group of people who are implementing integral ideas in their community.

Most churches take centuries before they develop critical mass. Heck, it took science some thousands of years to take hold. Integral theory is only a few decades old.

This is true. There is a common thread within specific types of integral. Wilber's work has a very clear thread. The followers of Aurobindo have a very common thread. However, integral as a general category is broad. There has been much discussion in the past few years about what all integralists can agree upon. There was a dicussion about this when OSI first started.

WilliamBlue

It is my belief that non-rational only means that we do not understand the science behind these things yet.

I do not find this to be non-rational, your mind works on problems all the time, even and especially while you sleep.

This is fine and dandy as long as you don't let your faith rule your rational mind which leads to things such as (non-)intelligent design.

Should be "We are barely beginning to even figure out how to think about consciousness, but its still mostly outside of limits of current science."

Here I agree with you to a certain extent, although I do not agree that we need to make up some magic(faith) to try to explain what you call non-rational events. This is the reason we have non-agreeable religions on this planet. I think eventually (if we don't destroy ourselves) our science will catch up enough to be able let us understand. Sure you can muse all you want, but unless you can prove (reproducible) it scientifically, then you are pretty much just stirring water.

Is meditation religious? Or do religions use meditation?

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?

AB517

Hey Blue

"This is fine and dandy as long as you don't let your faith rule your rational mind which leads to things such as (non-)intelligent design."

What you mean to say is that

It is fine and dandy to believe what you want as long as it agrees with me!

I am one of those science believers that believe in a god and I use the exact same data you use to be a non-believer. You may not agree with how I use the data but it is rational. If you pull out the standard “you delusional and full of crap”, it is cool, Einstein said the same to Bohr, so I am in good company.

Everything else you said I understand.

WilliamBlue

Pretty much, yeah.

Do you believe in intelligent design? Just curious.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?

AB517

You’re a big ol’ turkey

As taught by religions around the world?

errr .... uummmm .... well … mite as well be … yeppers …. That’s it ……

No