Beautifully written, and inspiring. Really makes clear the vast difference between the integral and other views.
In further writings, you might note the radical difference between the integral cosmology of Sri Aurobindo and that of Ken Wilber - not that there are really any more than superficial similarities, but for people who know Wilber and not Sri Aurobindo, it can help to point this out, at least briefly.
(I used to say something like, 'If you want a very simple introduction to Sri Aurobindo's cosmology, read what Ken Wilber has written about Sri Aurobindo and assume the opposite." He has written a defense of his "understanding" of Sri Aurobindo's cosmology in an appendix to his book, "Eye of Spirit," and does not get even ONE thing correct!
I have written quite a bit, but for now, I just meant writing a one line note ("I'm referring her to Sri Aurobindo's integral cosmology, which is quite different from Ken Wilber's integral theory")
Sorry, i volunteered too soon. I looked at it - wrote it about 20 years ago and definitely not worth quoting. I just made my comment as I was reading your essay, I realized one of the times you mentioned "integral" it triggered the question, "wait, Wilber or Sri Aurobindo?"
So i figured someone else might have the same thought, and all it takes is a line - parenthetical, even - mentioning you're referring to Sri Aurobindo and not Wilber. If folks have questions, they can ask - but it seems that for many, Wilber is long forgotten, so it may not even be necessary.
You are right, I think I should have stated more clearly that all this is inspired by Sri Aurobindo. I added a short note at the beginning of the first part.
True is also that the distinction from Wilber should be made. After all I make it from Kastrup, and others as well. In "Spirit calls Nature" I wrote the following (with few modifications here) about Wilber. I guess it does not reflect what your observations would have been, but this was the feeling I got when reading about his ideas.
"Readers acquainted with other ‘integral’, ‘holistic’, or ‘universal’ theoretical frameworks may recognize some similarities between the integral cosmology present here and the ‘integral theory’ of American philosopher Ken Wilber. There are, indeed, similarities and overlaps, due mainly to the common source of the integral yoga of Sri Aurobindo. However, the approach, viewpoint, and purpose of the present work are quite different. Wilber’s integral theory is more concerned with developing a comprehensive representation and conceptual organization of all human knowledge in a ‘four-quadrant grid’ with its ‘levels’ and ‘lines’ of development, its different forms of intelligence and states of consciousness organized in a structural framework of developmental psychology (the ‘pre-personal’, ‘personal’, ‘trans-personal’). Here, instead, we do not attempt to establish yet another model, conceptual organization, or ‘structure’ other than being inspired by Sri Aurobindo's vision (mainly based on his spiritual practice he called 'integral yoga',) and interpret modern scientific knowledge, the past and present spiritual philosophy, and the philosophy of mind from its perspective.
Our task is to develop a post-material synthesis of knowledge which allows us to ‘see’ the universal phenomena, evolution, consciousness, physics, cosmology, life and matter, the human’s social development, etc. from that spiritual perspective. In our opinion, it is ‘integral’ and ‘trans-rational’ enough and doesn’t need further modeling, mental reorganizations, intellectual extensions, or 'grids' a la Wilber. We will emphasize much more the ‘way of seeing’ things, bringing into our awareness the forces standing behind the phenomena, rather than trying to build another conceptual organization that is supposed to contain and systematize them all. Though a theoretical framework with its conceptual background will also be necessary in the present context, the aim here isn’t to build another ‘integral theory’ rather an ‘integral seeing’. It is in this spirit that the following must be read—not an elaborated intellectual systematization of knowledge leading to a grand scheme, but a synthesis of knowledge that resorts to a higher-mind way of seeing that reveals itself spontaneously as a grand vision."
Beautifully written, and inspiring. Really makes clear the vast difference between the integral and other views.
In further writings, you might note the radical difference between the integral cosmology of Sri Aurobindo and that of Ken Wilber - not that there are really any more than superficial similarities, but for people who know Wilber and not Sri Aurobindo, it can help to point this out, at least briefly.
(I used to say something like, 'If you want a very simple introduction to Sri Aurobindo's cosmology, read what Ken Wilber has written about Sri Aurobindo and assume the opposite." He has written a defense of his "understanding" of Sri Aurobindo's cosmology in an appendix to his book, "Eye of Spirit," and does not get even ONE thing correct!
Oh... interesting idea. The problem is that I have only a superficial knowledge of Wilber's theory. Would you like to write something?
I have written quite a bit, but for now, I just meant writing a one line note ("I'm referring her to Sri Aurobindo's integral cosmology, which is quite different from Ken Wilber's integral theory")
Ok, how long is it? If it is long, I may add it in a separate post as a 'guest comment'.
Otherwise we might insert few paragraphs in one of the next posts.
Sorry, i volunteered too soon. I looked at it - wrote it about 20 years ago and definitely not worth quoting. I just made my comment as I was reading your essay, I realized one of the times you mentioned "integral" it triggered the question, "wait, Wilber or Sri Aurobindo?"
So i figured someone else might have the same thought, and all it takes is a line - parenthetical, even - mentioning you're referring to Sri Aurobindo and not Wilber. If folks have questions, they can ask - but it seems that for many, Wilber is long forgotten, so it may not even be necessary.
You are right, I think I should have stated more clearly that all this is inspired by Sri Aurobindo. I added a short note at the beginning of the first part.
True is also that the distinction from Wilber should be made. After all I make it from Kastrup, and others as well. In "Spirit calls Nature" I wrote the following (with few modifications here) about Wilber. I guess it does not reflect what your observations would have been, but this was the feeling I got when reading about his ideas.
"Readers acquainted with other ‘integral’, ‘holistic’, or ‘universal’ theoretical frameworks may recognize some similarities between the integral cosmology present here and the ‘integral theory’ of American philosopher Ken Wilber. There are, indeed, similarities and overlaps, due mainly to the common source of the integral yoga of Sri Aurobindo. However, the approach, viewpoint, and purpose of the present work are quite different. Wilber’s integral theory is more concerned with developing a comprehensive representation and conceptual organization of all human knowledge in a ‘four-quadrant grid’ with its ‘levels’ and ‘lines’ of development, its different forms of intelligence and states of consciousness organized in a structural framework of developmental psychology (the ‘pre-personal’, ‘personal’, ‘trans-personal’). Here, instead, we do not attempt to establish yet another model, conceptual organization, or ‘structure’ other than being inspired by Sri Aurobindo's vision (mainly based on his spiritual practice he called 'integral yoga',) and interpret modern scientific knowledge, the past and present spiritual philosophy, and the philosophy of mind from its perspective.
Our task is to develop a post-material synthesis of knowledge which allows us to ‘see’ the universal phenomena, evolution, consciousness, physics, cosmology, life and matter, the human’s social development, etc. from that spiritual perspective. In our opinion, it is ‘integral’ and ‘trans-rational’ enough and doesn’t need further modeling, mental reorganizations, intellectual extensions, or 'grids' a la Wilber. We will emphasize much more the ‘way of seeing’ things, bringing into our awareness the forces standing behind the phenomena, rather than trying to build another conceptual organization that is supposed to contain and systematize them all. Though a theoretical framework with its conceptual background will also be necessary in the present context, the aim here isn’t to build another ‘integral theory’ rather an ‘integral seeing’. It is in this spirit that the following must be read—not an elaborated intellectual systematization of knowledge leading to a grand scheme, but a synthesis of knowledge that resorts to a higher-mind way of seeing that reveals itself spontaneously as a grand vision."