What is the true benefit and practical application of uber theories like Integral and Spiral Dynamics?

I've been thinking about this topic recently, and there were a few Twitter conversations (tweets) yesterday that prompted me too dig deeper:

@ericschiller: How useful are models like spiral dynamics at helping us grow? Or do they just show us the path, but not the steps?

@ericblue: @ericschiller I've thought about that quite a bit. the models are helpful in 'showing the path', or giving you a flashlight in the cave.

@ericblue: @ericschiller I've been thinking of ways to balance theoretical (top-heavy conceptual models) w/ pragmatic use. How can you apply in life.

@NeillGibson: @ericschiller @ericblue interesting link on spiral dynamics = Rich Carlson’s critique of Integral Theory http://bit.ly/25Syv

@ericblue: @NeillGibson @ericschiller Good critique of SD, Integral & theories in general @ http://tinyurl.com/puser8 (was my 1st intro to Integral)

One very interesting point that came from my last link (Tim Boucher's critique of Ken wilber back in 2005) was the following:

Who needs theories, anyways?

"My first and probably biggest question about this book and Wilber’s work in general is: Why on earth do we need a Theory of Everything? Life already gives us the everything, so what’s the use in having a theory about everything? Doesn’t the extra layer of theory add also a layer of distance, a separation between us and the everything? Do I need a theory about how locomotion works into the grand scheme of the universe in order to run across a field in spring-time with a dog? Do I need to know the biological mechanisms that control love, sex and attraction to be totally captivated by the sleeping face of the woman I’m in love with? I guess I’m beginning to feel less and less interested in theory for it’s own sake. I find myself drawn increasingly to the approach that fields like Neuro-Linguistic Programming take; they say, “we don’t have a theory” and instead just focus on what works and what doesn’t."

This is a very good point.

Personally speaking, I'm a huge fan of both Integral and Spiral Dynamics.  I'm drawn to 'theory of everything' models for a variety of reasons.  First and foremost, I like the complexity (the intellectual challange) and the simplicity (how does everything work together) at the same time.  One challenge though with all these models is that they, of course, don't truely represent reality as it is.  You know, the age old cliche of 'the map is not the territory'.

I feel in many ways, after much reading and research, that I'm cognitively starting to 'get it'.  And, while I'm really starting to grok some of these models I'm recognizing (as much as I can) where I'm at on the developmental path (stages, lines, spiral, etc.).  Like many predominantly left-brained (I don't always like that term, but let's just say analytical) people that are drawn to 'conceptual cartography' I've observed that my cognitive/intellectual line of development might be slighly ahead of other areas. 

So, these theories seem to work great for enhancing cognitive lines, but what about emotional, spiritual, moral and others?  As much as I love theories, and I am predominantly an idealist, I also have a very down to earth side.  I've recognized that in order to be truely integral you need to balance theory with some sort of practice and application.  It seems that pragmatism and practicality are the answer.  I think there is something to be said about Praxis: the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted or practiced.  As William James said, "What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?".

What does this mean about theories?  You could argue that they might be a 'cognitive burden', are intellectually top-heavy, a barrier to entry, and a labeling mechanism.  Should they be tossed aside?  While looking for some answers to this question, I stumbled across a passage in 'Integral Spirituality' by Ken Wilber pg. 38:

".... you can sit on your meditation mat for decades, and you will NEVER see anything resembling the stages of Spiral Dynamics.  And you can study Spiral Dynamics till the cows come home, and you will NEVER have a satori.  And the integral point is, if you don't include both, you will likely never understand human beings or their relation to Reality, divine or otherwise."

From the Power of Myth with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers (p.115):

MOYERS: You Write in The Mythic Image about the center of transformation, the idea of a sacred place where the temporal walls may dissolve to reveal a wonder.  What does it mean to have a sacred place?

CAMPBELL: This is an absolute necessity for anybody today.  You must have a room, or a certain hour or so a day, where you don't know what was in the newspapers that morning, you don't know who your friends are, you don't know what you owe anybody, you don't know what anybody owes to you.  This is a place where you can simply experience and bring forth what you are and what you might be.  This is the place of creative incubation.  At first you may find that nothing happens there.  But if you have a sacred place and use it, something eventually will happen.

Good overview of Kant and the Reenchantment of the world from Wilber's Marriage of Sense and Soul (pg. 86):

"Critique of Pure Reason (written in 1781)
relentlessly exposed the inadequacies of
monological reason to grasp metaphysical
truths, and it basically marked the dramatic
and historical end of that type of metaphysics.
The death of traditional metaphysics: this was
the virtually unarguable conclusion of Kant's
first critique.

  But for Kant, this was just the opening act.
He demonstrated that monological reason
cannot prove the existence of Spirit, freedom,
or immortality. But he also demonstrated that
reason could not disprove their existence either.
So science was not allowed to do two things:
(1) it could not say that Spirit existed; but (2)
it most certainly could not say that Spirit did
not exist! Kant's point was that, as he put it,
he wanted to demolish knowledge (it-
knowledge) in order to make room for faith.
Only as objectivistic, positivistic, mono-logical
reason stopped trying to get its hands on Spirit,
could other types of knowing step in to take up
the fight.

  Thus, in his second critique (Critique of
Practical Reason, 1788), Kant attempted to
show that where monological reason fails to
prove (or disprove) Spirit, dialogical reason can
succeed, at least in certain suggestive ways.
For if scientific reason (it-rationality) cannot
grasp God, dialogical reason (moral, ethical,
practical reason) does tend to show us a
type     of   transcendental      and     spiritual
knowledge. Moral reason (not it-knowledge
but we-knowledge) can, he believed,
operate only under the assumption that
Spirit exists, that freedom makes sense,
and that there is a type of immortality to
the soul. His argument, basically, is that the
interior "ought" of moral reasoning could
never get going in the first place without the
postulates of a transcendental Spirit: the
stomach would not hunger if food did not
exist. And where monolog-ical it-knowledge
can tell us precisely nothing about this
spiritual domain, dialogical we-knowledge
operates with its postulates all the time1.

  We can already see that Kant has begun
to differentiate clearly the Big Three value
spheres (art, morals, and science; I, WE, and
IT), and he has dramatically taken spiritual
knowledge out of the merely it-domain of
science and placed it squarely in the we-
domain of moral reasoning and yearning. He
wants      to    limit  it-science     (and     "it-
metaphysics"), but only to make room for
"we-metaphysics" and dialogical reason and
spiritual faith. Morals, not science, point
most clearly to God.

  What remained to be done was to find
some way to integrate this moral we-wisdom
with scientific it-knowledge, and in his third
great critique (Critique of Judgment, 1790),
Kant attempts this integration, in part
through the expressive-aesthetic dimension
(or art in the most general sense). In other
words, he wants to introduce the aesthetic I-
domain in order to integrate we-morals and
it-science. He wants to integrate the Big Three."

Originally posted on my main blog http://eric-blue.com

Overview

Last year I picked up a copy of The Integral Vision by Ken Wilber.  I recently decided to re-read the book, and created a comprehensive book summary highlighting the key pieces of information in the book.  The book summary is presented in the form of mind maps for each chapter.

Why am I doing this?

I first stumbled upon Integral Philosophy a couple years ago, and quite honestly became hooked.  Since that time, I’ve read a wide variety of books and have engaged in the exciting and often daunting task of trying to build a comprehensive and well-informed worldview (or map).  There are a number of good intro books that people recommend for first diving into Ken Wilber’s work (e.g. A Brief History of Everything).  Regardless of which book you pick, the fact is for most people (myself included) this is a vast and complex topic.  Distilling a philosophy/worldview/framework into a small but useful text is difficult to say the least.

I’ve personally found The Integral Vision to be the best intro into Integral.  It’s a short, but powerfully-information packed book that definitely does justice to such an interesting and complex topic.  My hope is that others who are just getting into Integral Theory/Philosophy will benefit from the mind map summaries.  My advice would be to get the book, and use the maps as a study or reference guide to help the information sink in.

Overview

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 1

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 2

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 3

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 4

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 5

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 6

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Entire Book Summary

Download (2.0MB Zip)

From the Science of Oneness by Malcolm Hollick (p 163).

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh explains:

The Buddha ... said that in order to understand, you have to be one with what you want to understand. ...

The French language has the word comprendre, which means to understand, to know, to comprehend.  Com means to be one, to be together, and prendre means to take or to grasp.  To understand something is to take that thing up and to be one with it.  The Indians have a wonderful example.  If a grain of salt would like to measure the degree of saltiness of the ocean, to have a preception of the saltiness of the ocean, it drops itself into the ocean and becomes one with it, and the perception is perfect. ...

Understanding means to throw away your knowledge.  You have to be able to transcend your knowledge ... The technique is to release.  The Buddhist way of understanding is always letting go of our views and knowledge in order to transcend. ... That is why I use the image of water to talk about understanding.  Knowledge is solid; it block the way of unerstanding.  Water can flow, can penetrate.

Wilber makes reference to the birth of AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) in his work The Marriage of Sense and Soul - Integrating Science and Religion (pg. 63):

"It is fascinating that both premodern religion and modern science have a defining hierarchy, and both of them are composed of enveloping nests of increasing embrace (development that is envelopment).  And yet, these two major and extremely influential hierarchies never quite agree with each other.  Tantalizingly, they seem to talk about the same thing (a graded series of realities), yet their major terms never really match up.  Clearly, if we could find some way that these two hierarchies were genuinely related to each other, we would have teken an important step toward the hoped-for integration of premodern and modern.

In researching this problem, I did an extensive data search of several hundred hierarchies, taken from systems theory, ecological science, Kaalah, developmental psychology, Yogachar Buddhism, moral development, biological evolution, Vendanta Hinduism, Neo-Confucianism, cosmic and stellar evolution, Hwa Yen, the Neoplatonic corpus - an entire specturm of premodern, modern, and postmedern nests.  After I had collected several hundres hierarchies, I tried grouping them in various ways, and I eventually noticed that, without exception, they all fell into one of four major types.  These (are the) four types of hierarchies - which I call the four quadrants..."

I've been meaning to dig deeper into Rudolph Steiner's works since I first became aware of him a few years ago.  Steiner is an intriguing character for a number of reasons.  He was a passionate polymath, being interested and well-versed on a wide range of topics, accomplished philosopher and lecturer, founder of an alternative education system (Waldorf), and expert on esoteric matters (having founded Anthroposophy).

I was at the book store the other week, saw a book on his life and works, and decided to pick it up.  While reading the book, I saw reference to one of his famous works: Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment.  I've been briefly skimming the book (thanks to Google Books) and found 2 great passages that resonated with me.  Steiner discusses the importance of patience with respect to the pursuit of knowledge (pg. 31).

"... no student should spend more time and strength upon these exercises  than he can spare with due regard to his station in life and to his duties; nor should he change anything for the time being, in the  external conditions of his life through taking this path.  Without patience no genuine results can be attained."

AND

"When the student seeks the path leading to higher knowledge in the way described in the preceeding chapter, he should not omit to fortify himself; throughout his work, with one ever present thought.  He must never cease repeating to himself that he may have made quite           
considerable progress after a certain interval of time, though it may  not be apparent to him in the way he perhaps expected; otherwise he can lose heart and abandon all attempts after a short time."

From "No Boundary":

"These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for waht they are; they exist with God today.  There is no time for them.  There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence.... But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or heedless of the riches that sourround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future.  He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time."

Nietzsche and Integral Philosophy.... 2 of my favorite topics.  I'm in the middle of reading the latest issue of the Integral Review, and found a great passage from Nietzsche on recurrence:

"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!” Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: “You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.” If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you."
(Nietzsche, 1974, p. 273)

Cross-posted from my main blog:

Psychology Today recently posted the last known interview with George Carlin (interviewed on 6/13/2008).  Whether or not your a fan of George's comedy is beside the point.  This interview is hands down one of the best I've read in a while, and gives some great insights into Carlin's history, personality, and creative process.

From the article:

"Ten days ago, on Friday, June 13th, 2008, I had the extraordinary privilege of talking to George Carlin. As far as I know it was the last in-depth interview he gave before he passed away yesterday at age 71. Originally it was slated to run as a 350-word Q&A on the back page of Psychology Today. But I was so excited to talk to him—and he was so generous with his time—that I just kept on going. By the end I had over 14,000 words.

On stage, George Carlin came across as a grouch, often vulgar and sometimes misanthropic. But with me he was patient and warm, happy to talk through the minutiae of his creative process and eager to share stories about his childhood, his evolution as a comic, and his influence. What struck me most was the joy in his voice as he talked about the wonderful feeling he got in his gut while writing. I was also moved by the gratitude he expressed for his mother, who he said “saved” him and his brother—leaving her bullying, alcoholic husband when George was just two months old, getting a job during the worst years of the Depression, and raising two boys on her own."

One particular Q&A that stuck out to me was Arthur Koestler's influence on Carlin's work.  I'm only partially familiar with Koestler's works, but I'm assuming the book he's referring to is the Act of Creation (now officially on my reading list).

"You asked me to remind you to tell me about Arthur Koestler.

That was another impact. I was doing nightclub comedy down in the Village. I was down there in ’63, ’64, and my friend told me about Arthur Koestler’s book about the act of creation and it had a section on humor.

He was talking about the creative process. There was an illustration on the panel that showed a triptych. On the left panel, there were these names of artistic pursuits. There were poets, painter, composer. And one of them was jester. I was only interested in the jester. What he said about each of these, he said these individuals on the left hand side can transcend the panels of the triptych by creative growth.

The jester makes jokes, he’s funny, he makes fun, he ridicules. But if his ridicules are based on sound ideas and thinking, then he can proceed to the second panel, which is the thinker—he called it the philosopher. The jester becomes the philosopher, and if he does these things with dazzling language that we marvel at, then he becomes a poet too. Then the jester can be a thinking jester who thinks poetically.

I didn’t see that and say, “That’s what I am going to do,” but I guess it made an impression on me. I was never afraid to grow and change. I never was afraid of reversing my field on people, and I just think I’ve become a touch of each of those second and third descriptions and I definitely have a gift for language that is rhythmic and attractive to the ear, and I have interesting imagery which I guess is a poetic touch. And I like the fact that most of my things are based on solid ideas, things I’ve thought about in a new way for me, things for which I have said “Well, what about this? Suppose you look at it this way? How about that?” And then you heighten and exaggerate that, because comedy’s all about heightening and exaggerating. And anyways I guess I was impressed that there was another thing from my early life that probably at least influenced me to some level."

On a parting note, I think George's thoughts on death are appropriate:

"The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A Death! What’s that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you’re too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you’re young enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you get ready for high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months floating …and you finish off as an orgasm."

—

George Carlin

R.I.P.