The latest two issues of Seeds of a Second Renaissance give a basic introduction to Integral Theory “Quadrants” and “Levels”: two core elements of the AQAL model (“All Quadrants, All Levels”) which is at the heart of Integral.
For those who are new(ish) to Integral Theory:
What did you find helpful?
What’s still unclear to you?
For those who are familiar with Integral Theory:
What other resources would you recommend for diving deeper into Integral?
What further detail, depth, or nuance do you think it’s important to share about Integral Theory and its applications?
I have one point about AQAL. I have no issue with the interior–exterior dimension, as whenever you distinguish a thing, it has some kind of boundary (even if vague and ill-defined), and thus can be viewed from the inside or outside perspectives.
What I’m less comfortable with is with drawing just one line between individual and collective, putting all the “colllective” lumped together. As I pointed out in my pieces on Collective Ikigai (2021-11-30 Collective ikigai and 2021-12-10 Ikigai through collective) I find it much more helpful to put in explicitly a division between the small, face-to-face level of collective and the wider world — because the way we approach and interact at these levels seems to me very different. Thus, there is a big difference in effect and relationship between beliefs, worldviews and values shared in a small group, and those endemic in an extensive culture (such as what we tend to call “modernity” from a Western perspective). There is much more room for creative change at the face-to-face group level … though we need to understand the dynamics here (which we often overlook, or don’t study).
Ironically, I see Wilber’s distinction here as playing into the individualist worldview and mindset, rather than getting beyond it. And, putting everything in 2*2 grids is so … well … 20th century business norm!
So maybe I would try (though I’m not going to right now!) having six boxes instead of four, and seeing what that does.
This seems like a plausible critique of Wilber - though I suppose to be fair that abstract distinction between individual and collective is found in the majority of thinkers throughout history. The idea that the face-to-face level is distinctive and important in this way is one I associate with a fairly small subtradition including Buber, Levinas, and some parts of the psychoanalytic and human potential movement.
Perhaps another way of seeing the limitations of Wilber here is his other fourfold of Growing up, Cleaning up, Showing up and Waking up - none of which is specifically about the face-to-face relational dimension.
It makes sense if you are drawn to that subtradition - as I am as well - that Wilber falls a bit short, but he’s no different in that respect to, say Heidegger or Habermas.
