Jump to content

Talk:Integral theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References

While the text is not bad, it needs inline references. Also, Mr. Wilber's work needs to be referenced from third party sources as much as possible. Wikipedia is after "verifiability, not truth". --Rocksanddirt 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation?

There is no explanation of what this allegedly amazing theory is. This whole article just pontificates on how wonderful it is, whatever it is. This is a pointless article.72.78.180.31 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so much pointless - Wilber's theories are certainly notable - as somewhat unbalanced. Those interested in this subject may find this link of interest. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Intergral theory, etc.. Ben MacDui (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from "Integral thought"? DGG (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Move content from the Ken Wilber page

There is a Ken Wilber with a large part of the content about Integral Theory. It would better fit this page, so as to more clearly distinguish the author from his contributions to the theory (however huge they are). I'm happy to help with it or do it, but I'm new at editing so I prefer to engage a discussion first. --Nomade0 (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Integral Theory was created after several weeks of discussions on the talk page for the page that is now called Integral_(spirituality). Contributions are welcome.

Restoring Integral Politics page

I was going through the redirects, and it seems that a lot of them point to Integral Politics. It seems to me that the old page could be restored and added to the list of integralist pages, assuming sufficient third party refernces and footnotes could be added to show notability M Alan Kazlev (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a short stub for "Integral politics" Much more needs to be done. Joeperez69 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

What is it?

After reading the information here, I am still wondering... What it is. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. Is this anything other than puff for someone's pet theory? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In particular, "quadrant" and "level" appear to be key technical terms, and are not defined on this page. 121.73.5.66 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. — goethean ॐ 02:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While unsurprising in the pseudoscience community, to have an article about a "theory" and include no criticism, no critical thought, no reflection from any foundation other than "Integral Theory" makes this article useless. Like many other pseudo-sciences and religious/spiritual movements, there is a strong resistance to critical thought, reflected by the fact that neither this article, nor the Integral Institute's, nor Ken Wilber's has ANY section about criticisms of the theories presented. There was an effort to do so on Ken's article, but it was removed in much the same way the scientologists removed any balanced or critical reflection on their theories. This sort of behavior may be part of the culture of Integral Theory, but it it should not be part of the culture of Wikipedia, which does not exist as propaganda, but aims to represent the prevailing perspectives on these issues. Even if they are wrong, its inarguable that a large number of people view Integral Theory as quack science. There are plenty of criticisms out there. To list a few: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1987.tb00889.x/abstract http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_on_biological_evolution.html http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/01/ken-wilbers-creationism-is-pseudo-science.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.149.161 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

View Ken Wilber's response to criticisms about his understanding of evolution: http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/390 Additionally, there are many avenues for criticism of Integral Theory. At each Integral Theory conference there is a section dedicated to the presentation of papers that constructively criticize Integral Theory and awards for best paper in that section. Also, if you pick up a copy of Integral Theory in Action you'll find a paper by Bill Torbert (boston university) that directly challenges Integral Theory. I've yet to come across any other serious academic critiscisms of Integral Theory. If they exist, they should be added to the article. What also should be added is the fact that there are also a number of current professors at mainstream academic institutions such as University of Colorado Boulder (Michael Zimmerman), University of California Irvine (Roger Walsh), Cleveland State Unviersity (Elliot Ingersoll), University of Oslo, Le Moyne College, Columbia University Teachers College, Augusta State University, a doctoral candidate at Harvard Graduate School of Education (working with Kegan) etc. that accept and utilize Integral Theory in their teaching and research. And that's only scholars that have published research. Not to mention the fact that SUNY press publishes a peer-reviewed journal on Integral Theory and has also published 4 books so far (with 4 more on the way) in their Series in Integral Theory. I've also edited the overview of this article to make things more clear about what Integral Theory actually is and its current state in the world at large. 69.118.209.209 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the category 'pseudoscience' because there is no consensus. It could be mentioned in a critics section. --Pevos (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is the main meat of the actual theory of Integral Theory on Ken Wilber's page? Its home should be in this article. 69.118.209.209 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I see an awful amount of material sourced to Integral Theory websites and authors. Isn't there any outside review of the field and its relative influence? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, hey, the lead has a lot of self-serving fluff and then it says "However, there is ongoing discussion surrounding its standing in academia". But then the body says "Integral Theory is widely ignored at mainstream academic institutions". The lead is supposed to summarize what the body says. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an editor who knows what this is and can explain it in an elevator pitch? Because all I get is "it explains everything, and is very complicated." Are there academic departments in major universities, or is it a trans-discipline thing, or is there a secret handshake, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.10.142 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is very bizarrely structured. If there is any substance here beyond the vacuous New Age trifle - and I am dubious of this - the article needs to then be re-organized for easier explanation. 70.138.217.107 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added some content to Aurobindo's, Gebser's, and Wilber's usage of the term 'integral'. — goethean ॐ 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

/* What is it? */ In Integral Spirituality (2006) Wilber uses many graphs and diagrams that are somewhat helpful for understanding AQAL and other concepts of the theory. However I do not know if these figures can be directly imported into the body of the article. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk7777 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Agree that diagrams such as wilber-combs matrix/lattice is needed for understanding of theory as are definitions and links or discussion of developmental theory for adults. 12.185.136.253 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

One merely has to search on the web for "critiques of Integral" to get the depth of the critiques. This article is hardly neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumon7 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This article as such is not enlightening, not fit for Wikipedia in its current form. Zezen (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted inappropriate links-- pasting them here

Academic programs

Conferences

Organizations

Publications

  • Conscious Evolution, essays and articles about the multidisciplinary, integral study of consciousness and the Kosmos.
  • Integral Leadership Review, the site of the online publications Integral Leadership Review and Leading Digest
  • Integral Life online community website that is the sponsoring organization of Integral Institute, a non-profit academic think tank.
  • Integral Review Journal, an online peer reviewed journal.
  • Integral World website and online resource maintained by Frank Visser.
  • Journal of Integral Theory and Practice a peer-reviewed academic journal founded in 2003 with its first issue appearing in 2006.
  • Kosmos Journal, founded in 2001, a leading international journal for planetary citizens committed to the birth and emergence of a new planetary culture and civilization.
  • World Futures: Journal of General Evolution. An academic journal devoted to promoting evolutionary models, theories and approaches within and among the natural and the social sciences.


24.213.177.78 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the California Institute of Integral Studies is not Wilber-affiliated, although both CIIS and Wilber draw on Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga, and I'm sure there are other overlaps and cross-pollinations. But CIIS predates Wilber.
Ixat totep (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopeless

"Conceptual framework" may be the best term, and still flattered, for this grandiose "theory". It's not a theory; theories can be tested. This is humbug. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think "conceptual framework" is too weak, essentially it's just a set of (loosely coupled) beliefs, not so much a coherent framework, so I'd rather call it "religion", . 91.61.77.233 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
"Too weak"? You mean "to strong"? ;). I'd first written "grid"; that's what it basically comes down to. I simple grid to summarize some literature (in Wilber's case, tons of literature). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Integral ---> Teratogenic! <---

Let's come up with a better definition and make up a coherent word for this Integral (?) somewhat of a ....Superthing.... Now, I'll do my part and look up the dictionary.... perhaps, if we merge a different language into this framework. Although, I rather still do my part for english. By the way, I'm Armenian, and a cat person, good luck. I've made up a prefect pitch word for the replacement of the theory phrase, now let's find a superdefinition.... - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.5.58 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Integral theory (Ken Wilber). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Integral theory (Ken Wilber). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Integral_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1221789309"