As the world in the 21st century gets increasingly beset with problems on a global scale; ecological devastation, global terrorism, nuclear arms, globalization, and massive amounts of information from the worldwide web; it becomes increasingly relevant for a global shared ethic and culture to emerge, one that will have the ability and capacity to deal with these problems, both for themselves and future generations.
This essay will consist of showcasing Integral theory and its implications for ethics, and towards better sustainability, both on the individual level and the collective level. Ethics will simply be termed in this essay as the branch of philosophy that deals with moral distinctions and the principles of "The Good," that men and women strive for.
Integral theory is a meta-theory, a philosophical framework that has been called a "theory of everything," and has implications for ethics. It is a framework that allows others to plug in different contexts and see the relationships between them. These contexts can be termed holons, or whole/parts, a term coined by Arthur Koestler. For example, an atom can be seen as a whole unto itself, but can also be seen as a part of a larger whole, such as a molecule. These contexts have a hierarchy or what can be termed a holarchy.[1]
In this developmental or evolutionary unfolding, each successive level does not jettison or deny the previous level, but rather includes and embraces it, just as atoms are included in molecules, which are included in cells, which are included in organisms. Each level is a whole that is part of a larger whole (each level or structure is a whole/part or holon). In other words, each evolutionary unfolding transcends but includes its predecessor(s), with Spirit transcending and including absolutely everything.[2]
Each level transcends and includes the other in its embrace. In this way concepts can be visually represented by each new emerging class. Looking at holons, one can tell that reality is comprised of (or at least the relationships between) holons.[3]
Integral theory, using research from psychologists and social science, has shown that there exists a spectrum of consciousness exist as developmental levels for the individual and society. There are both states and stages of consciousness. States of consciousness are temporary while stages of consciousness are permanent.[4]
To grasp what is involved with levels or stages, let's use a very simple model possessing only three of them. If we look at moral development, for example, we find that an infant at birth has not yet been socialized into the culture's ethics and conventions; this is called the preconventional stage. It is also called egocentric, in that the infant's awareness is largely self-absorbed. But as the young child begins to learn its culture's rules and norms, it grows into the conventional stage of morals. This stage is also called ethnocentric, in that it centers on the child's particular group, tribe, clan, or nation, and it therefore tends to exclude those not of its group. But at the next stage of moral development, the postconventional stage, the individual's identity expands once again, this time to include a care and concern for all peoples, regardless of race, color, sex, or creed, which is why this stage is also called worldcentric.
Thus moral development tends to move from "me" (egocentric) to "us" (ethnocentric) to "all of us" (worldcentric)-a good example of the unfolding waves of consciousness.[5]
So each increasing new level of conscious development transcends and includes the previous stage, but each level has different orientating values to them. There is also a distinction between healthy actualizing hierarchies, and dominator hierarchies.[6]
The AQAL[7] matrix maps out these different holonic contexts. The four quadrants look at reality from the subjective domain, the objective domain, the singular domain, and the collective domain. The AQAL matrix is based on perspectives that are embedded in language using 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person perspective. This distinguishes reality into the subjective domain (I), the inter-subjective domain (We), the objective domain (It) and the inter-objective domain (Its).[8]
These dimensions of the AQAL map can easily be simplified into the Big Three of I, We, It(s). The Big Three have a number of correlates to them, such as ethics (morals), science, and art or in Plato's "The Good, The True, The Beautiful."
They even show up in Kant's trilogy, The Critique of Pure Reason (science), The Critique of Practical Reason (morals), and The Critique of Judgment (aesthetic judgment and art).[9]
Integral theory sees that modernity differentiated these spheres, but also disassociated them. Instead of weaving the insights of these spheres together, modernity came with it the systematic domination of science, which ended up devaluing the subjective domain. The Left hand domain (subjective), collapsed to the Right hand domain (objective). This is known in Integral theory as flatland.[10]
In our postmodern culture, the philosophy of Postmodernism has contributed to the undermining of Ethics by changing the contexts of truth (relativism) and being unable to make value judgments on another culture (political correctness). The AQAL matrix however, shows that each domain has its own validity claims to truth, which provides the grounding of contexts and out-contextualizes Postmodernism. Truth in each quadrant is seen differently and has its own validity claim.[11]
The Pre/Trans fallacy is a very important distinction within Integral theory. The Pre/Trans fallacy when people confuse the transpersonal, transrational types of experiences with irrational and pre-personal types of experiences. Both these types of experiences are confused because they are both nonrational. They look very similar to the untutored eye, but they are as different as night and day. Unfortunately when people confuse the two, they either dismiss all spiritual experiences as "infantile yearnings" (Freud) or they elevate all myths to transrational glory (Jung, New Age movement). Thus when spiritual experiences happen, such as "an experience of timeless being, or eternal identity," they are lumped in with irrational experiences and are either dismissed or dubbed "hallucinations."[12]
Integral theory recognizes that all scientific knowledge falls into the three categories of injunction, illumination, and confirmation. These are the modes of broad science as opposed to narrow science. By using these tenets, then we can see that mysticism has its own injunctions, illuminations, and confirmations that can only be disclosed by the individual and the community who go through this process. This gives spirituality a solid basis for a transrational experiential process. Through meditation, contemplation, and spiritual experiences, the question of whether or not God, Spirit, or divine realities "really exist" can only be experientially disclosed in the own participant's consciousness. This also keeps religion from emphasizing bogus metaphysical claims and dogma that only serve as contentious issues for humanity. Instead, by emphasizing the transpersonal qualities of spirituality, (such as love, forgiveness, realization, peace, compassionate understanding etc,) religion and spirituality can help move the consciousness of individuals and society into a larger and more inclusive consciousness and context.[13]
By using the AQAL matrix, I was able to figure out that "good" and "evil" are not located in the objective domain. They are located in the subjective domain. For example, good and evil are value judgments. They are subjective realizations. They exist in the subjective domain, even though they have objective physical correlates. For example, the term "evil" has been associated with hatred and intolerance in people, but hatred and intolerance also have a usual physical correlate. The physical correlate of hatred is violence, just as the physical correlate of compassion is altruistic behavior, kindness, helping others etc. A person who keeps hatred and intolerance in their subjective mind will sooner or later manifest that violence in the outer world.
Although at first this seems like cultural relativism, but by putting moral judgments in the sphere of the subjective domain, it stops the abuses of people and groups who use the justification of "good and bad" in a naïve way to justify their own hatreds and resentments. By seeing any action, object or event's intrinsic "good" or "bad" qualities are based on the positionality of whether the person desired it or not. When people say something is good, they really mean they want it, while when people say something is bad, they really mean we do not like it. This also doesn't mean that a person's values "aren't real," or that they are "merely subjective." People use these subjective scales as guiding principles in their life, and people often have the same ideas of just what constitutes "good and bad" because they share the same level of depth, or value the same things.
We can instead, provide a stronger basis for morality by positing that the intrinsic "good," supports life and the consciousness of the individual and the collective, while the "bad" doesn't support life or undermines the consciousness of the individual. We may also see that many spiritual principles, such as the Golden rule, work this way and are concerned with the "healthiness" or well-being of this organic holon. We can also stop using these terms and merely see others as being limited and coming from a partial understanding which helps when understanding others of differing values, and which helps with our own compassion towards others. Most people intrinsically value human life, and are taught (sometimes indirectly) the basic precepts for the common good, from their family, religious traditions, and the laws of society. Integral theory doesn't throw out those values, but instead calls for individuals to expand upon them.
If we can point out that human values lie on a collective scale and that there is a spectrum to human consciousness, then we have a map and a "direction[14]" to move towards. The responsibility is placed on the individual in moving up these levels in his or her consciousness, and in their contributions to society, but we can also set up institutions and movements (collective values) that contribute to a greater understanding and provide the evolutionary growth of both society and the individual.
So how also does Integral theory contribute to Ethics? Ethics concerns itself with the moral choices and decisions that helps contribute both to an individual's well-being and provides the framework for a healthy society's well being. As such trying to distinguish the context of just what is "The Good," and how to go about it, has been Ethics major search. An integral framework helps clear up a lot of the confusion about major issues that have plagued both philosophy and religion, where most of Ethics gets its moral prescriptions. Integral theory doesn't tell people what to do, it just points out patterns in human behavior, and relationships to reality. By being able to make clearer distinctions, the right choice becomes obvious. By being able to look at different contexts and take multiple perspectives, Integral theory doesn't privilege any one voice. Instead it shows that those voices that do privilege a single domain are partial.
The Basic Moral Intuition is in Integral theory, and I propose a new one to go along with it, The Basic Moral Obligation. The Basic Moral Intuition (BMI) is to promote the greatest depth for the greatest span[15]. The Basic Moral Obligation (BMO) is to help relieve other's suffering. This suffering can either be external or internal. "Others" can also be interpreted in various ways. As a person's BMO moves up the scale of consciousness, it increasingly becomes more and more universal. The Basic Moral Obligation is an internal compulsion to help relieve "other's" suffering. The failure to do so, or actions that create suffering towards others, results in regret in a normal person's conscience.[16]
While the Basic Moral Obligation deals with the heart, the Basic Moral Intuition deals with the head. The Basic Moral Intuition says that both depth and span are important. "Depth is defined as the number of levels in a holon, and span is the number of holons on a level."[17] Depth in this instance would be consciousness. For example,
"A human has more depth than a cow, which has more depth than a carrot, which has more depth than a bacterium, which has more depth than a quark. So if we are forced to choose which to kill-a cow or a bacterium-we choose the bacterium. But because everything is interconnected, we don't act simply to promote more depth, but the most depth across the most span. Ecological awareness-and ecological ethics-involves this incredible balancing act between saving the most depth across the most span. Choosing just depth is anthropocentric; choosing just span is bacteria-centric. We act instead to protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span, or our Basic Moral Intuition.[18]"
Integral theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding philosophy and the world's great wisdom traditions. Integral theory has implications for science, religion, spirituality, politics, ecology, philosophy, medicine, business, art and especially ethics and is already affecting these fields.[19] The goal of being integrally informed is being inclusive; both of knowledge and of people.
[1]Wilber, A Brief History of Everything pgs 27-29.
[2]Wilber, The Simple Feeling of Being pg 69.
[3] Wilber, Sex, God, Ecology pgs 41-42.
[4] Wilber, The Integral Vision, pgs43-44.
[5] Wilber, The Integral Vision pg 34
[6] "But that which transcends can repress. And thus normal and natural hierarchies can degenerate into pathological hierarchies, into dominator hierarchies. In this case, an arrogant holon doesn't want to be both a whole and a part; it wants to be the whole, period. It does not want to share in the communions of its fellow holons; it want to dominate them with its own agency. Power replaces communion; domination replaces communication; oppression replaces reciprocity." --Wilber, The Eye of Spirit, pg 67.
An example of a dominator hierarchy would be a totalitarian state, or a dictator. It can also be a cancer, when junior cells don't communicate with their other cells and become malignant, and thus it devastates the body.
[7] The AQAL acronym is short for "All quadrants, all levels"
[8] Wilber, The Integral Vision pg 66-73.
[9] Wilber, A Brief History of Everything pgs 183-185.
[10] Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, 189-196.
[11] These are truthfulness (subjective), truth(objective), justness(intersubjective), and functional fit (interobjective).
Wilber, The Eye of Spirit pgs 12-16.
[12] Wilber, Sex, God, Ecology pgs 210-213.
[13] Wilber, The Eye of Spirit, pgs 76-86.
[14] The term "direction" is misleading. Rather it is more of an expansion of larger contexts (knowledge, compassion, abilities, etc). In this sense, it is not "power over" vs. "power under" but rather a move towards a larger, more inclusive context.
[15] Wilber, The Integral Vision, pgs 195-196.
[16] This relievement of other's suffering can take the form of also "not creating suffering in the first place." We can see the BMO in examples of the good Samaritan, or a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because she wants to relieve animals suffering (or cute bunnies), a person who gives to charity because they want to relieve another person's suffering, or even empathizing with your friend and trying to relieve their suffering. This "obligation" is an internal obligation from a person's conscience. It has to be internal, otherwise it won't stick in the person's consciousness. It becomes increasingly developed into a person's self-identity and how they see themselves. Already we can see that there are different levels of development As the BMO develops, we can see it go in levels of increasing "depth" or waves. At the high levels of the BMO we are concerned with not just trying to relieve my own friends or a group of my friends suffering (egocentric), and not just making good contributions to my society (ethnocentric), but trying to relieve whole populations of other's suffering (worldcentric). This can take many different forms but it becomes increasingly close to the Buddhist notion of a bodhisattva, which concerns itself with "liberating all sentient beings" from their suffering.
The objection that the BMO might go against telling the truth because the truth "creates suffering" doesn't hold out, because ultimately telling the truth is a virtue in itself, and often times learning the truth later on usually creates more suffering later on. Moreover, you can't control other people's reactions, but you can be careful with your delivery of truth.
[17] Wilber, The Integral Vision pg 196.
[18] Wilber, The Integral Vision pg 195-196.
[19] The Integral Vision pgs 92-102.
Help
Sign In
QaR
November 2009 
RLtruthseeker-artist
Access: Public
