m alan kazlev said... G: First of all, I welcome open dialogue, and thank you for taking the time to comment.In response to your concerns, my concept of Integral is inspired and based ultimately on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings (known as Integral Yoga). Hence it is primarily, at its center, yogic and spiritual, with the other (secondary) aspects radiating from that central hub...In the secondary (non-transcendent) aspects (Integral Science, Integral Art, etc) I have been influenced by the current (non-Aurobindonian) Integral movement which is inspired by Ken Wilber (usually referred to as Integral theory or Integral philosophy). However you will see from my other blog posts here and the linked articles that I seriously criticise Wilber for his excessive abstract mentalisation and his lack of authentic spirituality...It should be pointed out that the non-Wilberian integral movement is very diverse, you have people like William Irwin Thompson, Michael Murphy, Roland Benedikter (essay on his interpretation of Integral spiritual here), Michel Bauwens (p2p), and Jorge Ferrer. So there is no danger of some sort of monolithic over-intellectualised ossificiation. Indeed one might question whether the word "Integral" mean sanything at all. I am using it, as I said, primarily in an Aurobindonian context.
Even the smallest meanest work became A sweet or glad and glorious sacrament.
Pages
▼
August 13, 2006
Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings
m alan kazlev said... G: First of all, I welcome open dialogue, and thank you for taking the time to comment.In response to your concerns, my concept of Integral is inspired and based ultimately on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings (known as Integral Yoga). Hence it is primarily, at its center, yogic and spiritual, with the other (secondary) aspects radiating from that central hub...In the secondary (non-transcendent) aspects (Integral Science, Integral Art, etc) I have been influenced by the current (non-Aurobindonian) Integral movement which is inspired by Ken Wilber (usually referred to as Integral theory or Integral philosophy). However you will see from my other blog posts here and the linked articles that I seriously criticise Wilber for his excessive abstract mentalisation and his lack of authentic spirituality...It should be pointed out that the non-Wilberian integral movement is very diverse, you have people like William Irwin Thompson, Michael Murphy, Roland Benedikter (essay on his interpretation of Integral spiritual here), Michel Bauwens (p2p), and Jorge Ferrer. So there is no danger of some sort of monolithic over-intellectualised ossificiation. Indeed one might question whether the word "Integral" mean sanything at all. I am using it, as I said, primarily in an Aurobindonian context.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteI would like you to visit my blog www.banarasthefilm.blogspot.com
I shall be very pleased if you could.
LC