{"id":4135,"date":"2011-05-24T14:37:31","date_gmt":"2011-05-24T19:37:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=4135"},"modified":"2011-05-24T14:37:52","modified_gmt":"2011-05-24T19:37:52","slug":"process-integralism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/05\/24\/process-integralism\/","title":{"rendered":"Process integralism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Further on the integral theory<\/a> front, I wanted to mention another angle on the Wilber-Whitehead<\/a> conversation.<\/p>\n

Bonnitta Roy’s article “A Process Model of Integral Theory” (pdf<\/a>) in the December 2006 issue<\/a> of Integral Review<\/em> is a thought-provoking attempt to advance post-metaphysical integral theory further toward process thought and<\/em> Dzogchen Buddhism (what better combination?). Among the useful moves she makes are her links to Jason Brown’s Whiteheadian process neuropsychology<\/a> — which is, to my mind, the most developed of that line of thinking, alongside Ralph Pred’s Onflow<\/a> — and to the prescient work of Buddhist scholar Herbert Guenther. Guenther’s 1989 book From Reductionism to Creativity: rDzogs-Chen and the New Sciences of Mind<\/a> sank with too little trace, probably because it was so far ahead of its time: providing a dynamical-systems, enactive-cognitivist rendition of Buddhist theories of mind, it anticipated the later work of Francesco Varela and Evan Thompson well before their enactivist paradigm became as well established as it is today.<\/p>\n

The four appendices to that article have disappeared off the Integral Review site<\/a>, but Bonnitta has kindly made them available here: A (diagrams)<\/a>, B (Guenther notes),<\/a> C (the mind-body problem),<\/a> and\u00a0appendix D<\/a> which addresses the Wilber-Whitehead dialogue. Roy’s argument in the latter is that the process model starts out at a “more fundamental level than [Wilber’s] quadratic framework — in the depth and dynamics of a process view.” (See my overview of this debate here<\/a>.)\u00a0 See also Roy’s “Integral Manifesto” in 6 parts, beginning here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Among the other articles I’ve found particularly interesting in Integral Review<\/em> are two<\/a> ambitious pieces on critical integral theory<\/a> and integral micropolitics<\/a> by Daniel G. Anderson (who blogs here<\/a>), Martin Beck Matustik’s “Toward an Integral Critical Theory of the Present Era” (pdf<\/a>), and Tom Murray’s “Collaborative Knowledge Building and Integral Theory” (pdf<\/a>), which provides an extremely<\/em> useful and judicious review of integral theory critics’ and proponents’ views, as well as an argument for working through the divisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Further on the integral theory front, I wanted to mention another angle on the Wilber-Whitehead conversation. Bonnitta Roy’s article “A Process Model of Integral Theory” (pdf) in the December 2006 issue of Integral Review is a thought-provoking attempt to advance post-metaphysical integral theory further toward process thought and Dzogchen Buddhism (what better combination?).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":99,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[688977,4422],"tags":[17856,423,17859],"class_list":["post-4135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geo_philosophy","category-process-relational-thought","tag-integral-theory","tag-whitehead","tag-wilber"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4IC4a-14H","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":3238,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/04\/16\/eco-onto-politics-3-wilber-integralism-whitehead\/","url_meta":{"origin":4135,"position":0},"title":"Eco-onto-politics 3: Wilber, Integralism, & Whitehead","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"April 16, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"This post continues from the previous in this series, which looked at integral ecophilosopher Sean Esbjorn-Hargens's writing on the ontology of climate change. Here I examine the relationship between leading integral theorist Ken Wilber, integralist Esbjorn-Hargens, and process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. It's a little difficult to separate Wilber's and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2011\/04\/ken-wilber-275x206.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3126,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/04\/08\/eco-onto-politics-2-integralism-climate-change\/","url_meta":{"origin":4135,"position":1},"title":"Eco-onto-politics 2: Integralism & climate change","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"April 8, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"This is the second post in a series on the intersections between ecology, ontology, and politics. (The first reviewed Andrew Pickering's The Cybernetic Brain.) Here I focus on integral ecologist Sean Esbj\u00f6rn-Hargens's article An Ontology of Climate Change: Integral Pluralism and the Enactment of Multiple Objects. This post can also\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Climate change"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/climate-politics\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2011\/04\/immanence-275x98.gif?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3876,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/05\/17\/wilbers-post-metaphysical-turn\/","url_meta":{"origin":4135,"position":2},"title":"Wilber’s post-metaphysical turn","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"May 17, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Working through the last decade or so of Wilberian integral theory (which I'm doing in preparation for the upcoming group reading of Integral Ecology) is no small challenge. Ken Wilber's been an incredibly prolific writer, publishing scores of books over the last 15 years in addition to scattered shorter materials\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2011\/05\/ken-176x275.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":4519,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/06\/01\/integral-ecology-discussion-has-begun\/","url_meta":{"origin":4135,"position":3},"title":"Integral Ecology discussion has begun","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"June 1, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"... over at Knowledge Ecology. My quick impression from chapter 1\u00a0 is mixed: a promising start, followed by a sour turn and then something of a rebound. The opening case study of the Great Bear Rainforest controversy bodes well for building up the authors' case of IE's multi-perspectivalism on contentious\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Integral Ecology\"","block_context":{"text":"Integral Ecology","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/tag\/integral-ecology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1366,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2010\/11\/05\/process-relational-theory-primer\/","url_meta":{"origin":4135,"position":4},"title":"Process-relational theory primer","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"November 5, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the tasks of this blog, since its inception in late 2008, has been to articulate a theoretical-philosophical perspective that I have come to call \u201cprocess-relational.\u201d This is a theoretical paradigm and an ontology that takes the basic nature of the world to be that of relational process: that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Eco-theory"","block_context":{"text":"Eco-theory","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/ecophilosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4590,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/06\/16\/integral-ecology-week-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":4135,"position":5},"title":"Integral Ecology – week 3 (part 1)","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"June 16, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"The Integral Ecology reading group moves here this week, picking up the baton from Adam and Sam at Knowledge Ecology. (And see Michael's summary at Archive Fire.) This week we're focusing on chapters 3 (\"A Developing Kosmos\") and 4 (\"Developing Interiors\"). Following a short summative preamble, this post examines Chapter\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Eco-theory"","block_context":{"text":"Eco-theory","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/ecophilosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/99"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4135"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4142,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4135\/revisions\/4142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}