Meta-Integral

Die neue salonkultur erlaubt sich, aus einem integralen Grundverständniss heraus, integral integral zu sehen – umfassend und multiperspektivisch. Offen, neugierig und wertschätzend emergierenden Bewusstseins-Perspektiven gegenüber – freundlich umarmend in tiefer Wertschätzung Ken Wilber und den weiteren großen zwei Meta-Denkern gegenüber, Roy Baskhar und Edgar Morin. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens fasst in seinem Meta-Integral-Ansatz eine komplexere Suchbewegung zusammen. Reflektierend und konstruktiv-kritisch, erweitert denkend.


Meta-Praxis:
Read other integrative metatheories – become familiar with their disctintions.
Engange scholars from those „camps“ – so we can understand their distinctions from the inside out not just through our own preferred lenses.
Be transformed by them – let them shine a light on our own blindspots and let us be supported by their strengths and and expertise.
Drawn on their work in our own writings and applications.
Do joint projects together – metatheoretical teams of research and practice.
Sean Esbjörn Hargens  Meta-Integral


The intention here is not to bring theories together in order to create the biggest and the brightest super-theory that subsumes other explanations and understandings. Every theoretical position that has some valid research basis or authentic tradition of cultural knowledge behind it has something to offer and we need to find ways of integrating those insights while also respecting their characteristic and often conflicting differences. What I am suggesting here is not just another call for eclecticism or more interdisciplinary research. These responses to theoretical pluralism do not possess the necessary capacities for systematically linking multiple perspectives into an integrative framework. What is required is a balance between an integrative synthesis and a respect for the pluralism of perspectives.
Mark Edwards, Organisational Transformation for Sustainability


Key Features of an Integral Meta-Approach:

´First, be integrative, maximally inclusive and non- reductionist, respecting and dialoguing with reality openly, attempting to capture it in its full complexity and multidimensionality.

Second, defend the subject / agent’s ‘relative’ autonomy (against the reductionism and even erasure of both modernity and postmodernity) and retain, amplify and refine modernity’s stress on individual freedom, flourishing and dignity via a dialectical universality and unitas multicomplex that embraces both particular singularity and uniqueness and universal commonality.

Third, adopt a strong (non-naive, critical) realism that
a) embrace a weak social constructionism;
b) disambiguates clearly between ontology and epistemology (which remain distinct and at the same time inseparable);
c) is keenly aware of the epistemological structures and distortions that affect the knower; and
d) incorporates critical realism’s holy trinity (OR, ER and JR)
to avoid postmodernism judgmental relaOvism and rejecOon of objecOve truth, which leaves us helpless to confront the complex, real world problems of today.

Fourth, embrace a rationality that is integrated with affectivity, open, critical and self-critical, unafraid of ambiguity and contradictions, and geared towards transformative praxis.

Fifth, hold a post-formal vision of a unified, holistic, stratified and open totality, one that is built upon a spiritual infrastructure, and that possesses a tendential rational directionality that is moving creatively, in fits and starts and with regressions and progressions, towards ever-greater external complexity and internal consciousness.

Sixth, see humanity as an integral part of the cosmos and earth, having emerged out of the physio- and biospheres and thus including the totality within itself, and as moving tendentially and non-linearly, in large part through its own transformative praxis, towards ever-greater freedom, universal flourishing and self-realisation.

And finally, include a deeper interiority that reaches down to the non-dual absolute reality that underpins and sustains the relative world of duality and is our essential nature, allowing for both a ‘reverent’ spirituality based on contemplative phenomenology or a ‘secular’ one based on philosophical reflection.

There are of course many other ingredients of such a post- postmodern vision, but these are a just a few that have been distilled from the main areas of resonance between CR, IT (and CT).
Paul Marshall, ITC 2013 (Integral Theory Conference)

Global problems of the scale that we currently face require a response that can navigate through theoretical pluralism and not be swallowed up by it. In saying that, twenty-first-century metatheories will need to be different from the monistic, grand theories of the past. They will have to be integrative rather than totalising, pluralistic rather than monistic, based on science and not only on philosophy, methodical rather than idiosyncratic, find inspiration in theories from the edge more than from the centre and provide means for inventing new ways of understanding as much as new technologies.
Mark Edwards, Organisational Transformation for Sustainability