Category:Integral Theory: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
unknown (talk)
(Created page with " Material about various integrative/integral, i.e. non-reductionist approaches, such as "Integral Theory" proper, metamodernism, transmodernism, macrohistory, etc ...")
 
unknown (talk)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Material about various integrative/integral, i.e. non-reductionist approaches, such as "Integral Theory" proper, metamodernism, transmodernism, macrohistory, etc ...
=P2P Foundation Context=
The P2P Theory approach was initially conceived as a further specialized development within the tradition of integral theory, and while I have never pushed this part of our intellectual identity, it was always present in the background, if only by using the non-reductionist AQAL (all quadrants, all levels, the hermeneutic approach proposed by Ken Wilber).
I explain what lies behind our heuristic approach here: [[Integral Research Methodology]]. And also how we relate broadly to other subcurrents within the broad contemporary integral approaches, see: [[Place of the Integral Approach in P2P Theory]].
This being said, there are a lot of the members of our research network that do not focus on this, but would instead using participatory forms of actor-network theory for example. The full gamut of our theoretical inspirations is outlined in this overview of [[Sources of P2P Theory]].
To conclude, in my understanding, an integral approach is one that;
- respects the relative autonomy of the different fields, and looks for field specific laws,
- affirms that new levels of complexity cause the emergence of new properties and thus rejects reductionisms that try to explain the highly complex from the less complex,
- tries to formulate level-specific laws that relate the objective and subjective aspects, refusing to see any one aspect as a mere epiphenomena of the other,


Material about various integrative/integral, i.e. non-reductionist approaches, such as "Integral Theory" proper, metamodernism, transmodernism, macrohistory, etc ...
- is subjective-objective in that it always relates the understanding of the objective, through the prism of a recognised individual perspective in general,
 
- and attempts to correlate explanations emanating from the various fields, in order to arrive at an integrative understanding; in this sense it is a hermeneutic discipline focusing on creating meaning.
 
Personally (Michel Bauwens), I feel the closest to [[Critical Realism]] as it attempts to blend both the objective approaches of modernity, but integrating the valid concerns of postmodern critics. My approach would be transmodern in that it attempts to salvage and integrate the best of indigenous, traditional, modern and postmodern approaches; the two first may be lacking in CR but are present in the partipatory epistemologies of John Heron and Jorge Ferrer.
 
 
=General Context=
 
We do not restrict 'integral theory' to the approaches of Ken Wilber and the ulterior developments of this school of thought, but pay attention to full gamut of integral thinkers, before, during, and after this reconfiguration of the integral approach. So we would include names like Sorokin, Sarkar, Aurobindo, but especially Jean Gebser, and the further integration of Jean Gebser's thought by Peter Pogany for example. We also include [[Transmodernism]] (Irene Ateljevic) and [[Metamodernism]] (Hanzi Freinacht) based approaches. Macrohistory and macrohistorians would also be included, as would partipatory and integrative futures methododologies as those developed by Sohail Inayatullah or Jose Ramos.
 
 
=Key Resources=

Revision as of 10:54, 17 December 2020

Material about various integrative/integral, i.e. non-reductionist approaches, such as "Integral Theory" proper, metamodernism, transmodernism, macrohistory, etc ...


P2P Foundation Context

The P2P Theory approach was initially conceived as a further specialized development within the tradition of integral theory, and while I have never pushed this part of our intellectual identity, it was always present in the background, if only by using the non-reductionist AQAL (all quadrants, all levels, the hermeneutic approach proposed by Ken Wilber).

I explain what lies behind our heuristic approach here: Integral Research Methodology. And also how we relate broadly to other subcurrents within the broad contemporary integral approaches, see: Place of the Integral Approach in P2P Theory.

This being said, there are a lot of the members of our research network that do not focus on this, but would instead using participatory forms of actor-network theory for example. The full gamut of our theoretical inspirations is outlined in this overview of Sources of P2P Theory.

To conclude, in my understanding, an integral approach is one that;

- respects the relative autonomy of the different fields, and looks for field specific laws,

- affirms that new levels of complexity cause the emergence of new properties and thus rejects reductionisms that try to explain the highly complex from the less complex,

- tries to formulate level-specific laws that relate the objective and subjective aspects, refusing to see any one aspect as a mere epiphenomena of the other,

- is subjective-objective in that it always relates the understanding of the objective, through the prism of a recognised individual perspective in general,

- and attempts to correlate explanations emanating from the various fields, in order to arrive at an integrative understanding; in this sense it is a hermeneutic discipline focusing on creating meaning.

Personally (Michel Bauwens), I feel the closest to Critical Realism as it attempts to blend both the objective approaches of modernity, but integrating the valid concerns of postmodern critics. My approach would be transmodern in that it attempts to salvage and integrate the best of indigenous, traditional, modern and postmodern approaches; the two first may be lacking in CR but are present in the partipatory epistemologies of John Heron and Jorge Ferrer.


General Context

We do not restrict 'integral theory' to the approaches of Ken Wilber and the ulterior developments of this school of thought, but pay attention to full gamut of integral thinkers, before, during, and after this reconfiguration of the integral approach. So we would include names like Sorokin, Sarkar, Aurobindo, but especially Jean Gebser, and the further integration of Jean Gebser's thought by Peter Pogany for example. We also include Transmodernism (Irene Ateljevic) and Metamodernism (Hanzi Freinacht) based approaches. Macrohistory and macrohistorians would also be included, as would partipatory and integrative futures methododologies as those developed by Sohail Inayatullah or Jose Ramos.


Key Resources

Pages in category "Integral Theory"

The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 470 total.

(previous page) (next page)
(previous page) (next page)