As Robert suggests, “‘Integral’ is fast becoming a very loosely applied term, supplying a bit of contemporary heft to otherwise pedestrian nouns, while it slides ever further into that once-was-fashionable territory that has swallowed up such terms as ‘holistic.”
READ ROBERT’S FULL COMMENTS: HERE
“Being truly integral means, among other things, developing intimacy with everything that constitutes us. A genuinely integral consciousness lives such intimacy both conceptually and nonconceptually." -- Robert Masters (2007)
3 comments:
There is something that feels to me pretentious about using the term "integral". I don't try and live an integral life. I live and my integrality is a result of my integratedness and that is ever changing moment to moment, open to the silence and divine will in action in conjunction with the totality of all conditions.
I used to say marriage is not a goal; it is a result of the love and subsequent commitment two share. Integral is a result of the unity one feels with beingness as connected to the whole. I'm not knocking the maps for some but there is a point that the assumptions, preconceptions and fear of the unknown that fuel them can bar the recognition of a deeper truth and impetus.
8/1999
great article - i especially like the part about using integral-speak "sparingly" like it's a rare and pungent spice.
my main beef with contemporary integration is that - in reality - no one owns the term. many of my own circle unfortunately believe that Ken's Kosmos is the only truly integral description....
which isn't very integral, i'd say.
thanks for the forum!
I agree with Ryan.
"integral" should always be an afterthought if we get on with the business of living "it", and speaking it.
Ken may have started this new wave of integralism but it shouldn't end with him.
This site is a good start but what next?
THX all!
Post a Comment