Readers of the first draft manuscript on P2P Theory, will notice that I have a methodological section which refers to integral theory as the basis for structuring and organizing my inquiry. Some other readers will remember my critique of Ken Wilber for his intellectual and spiritual authoritarianism, which I find to be anti-thetical to the participatory worldview. I have often argued that integral theory is much broader than Wilber, and must now largely dismiss his weak and faulty version of it (it’s faulty because it is built on the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of systematically misrepresenting the raw data, as has been demonstrated by Jeff Meyerhoff).

Such a call has recently been re-iterated at the Open Integral blog, (I believe by my friend Alan Kazlev, though I do not find the signature), which I co-founded, but have decided not to participate in further because it also contains pro-war material. But this has not deterred others to make it a lively forum for debate on integralism.

In any case, one of the more recent entries, contains a typology of integrali theory, which is perhaps not complete but as comprehensive as I have seen so far, so I recommend reading the entry, the discussion, and paying some attention to the typology, which I’m reproducing here:

Participatory integralism, or P2P Theory, which also strives to be integral, i.e. meta-paradigmatic, is mentioned as one of those traditions. I think Alan has it exactly right.

This is a definitive progress compared to the Wilberian and Don Beckian characterization of P2P as ‘green’ (i.e. somehow a backward form of consciousness). It is more correct to say that P2P Theory is integral, but that P2P practices and projects can fall in many of the categories mentioned in the structural typologies of Wilber and Spiral Dynamics, as has been demonstrated by Chris Lucas.

“o Aurobindonian.  The original Integral tradition, represented by Integral Yoga, which has as its goal the Supramental Transformation of the Earth.  In sheer “include and transcend” value, nothing else comes close to this.  Nothing. (ok so I’m biased!     Sri Aurobindo, Mirra Alfassa (The Mother) and their disciples and those who try to carry on the Yoga.  Also includes Indra Sen (Aurobindo disciple, the original Integral psychologist and Integral theorist, now little known, I wrote his bio for Wikipedia), Haridas Chaudhuri, and Michael Murphy.

o Theosophical-Anthroposophical – the occult/esoteric version of integral.  Blavatsky, Steiner, the early David Spangler, much of the New Age movement.   (Spangler later rejected the New Age movement for its crass commercialism, but he could still be considered, like Wilber, New Age sensu lato.  Probably deserves his own category now)

o Humanistic  A vision of integral culture, integral art, integral commentary on life…   I would include here Gebser, Thompson, and Dallman

o Teleologists – Teilhard de Chardin established a new way of looking at evolution, and the synthesis of science and religion. Some fascinating parallels with Sri Aurobindo, but the two never knew of each other’s work.  There is a tradition of Teilhardism among scientists in the West, including palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris.

o “Unified Science” – Edward Haskell and coworkers; craeted a theory of everything as universal as AQAL.  Now almost totally forgotten 

o Scientific includes a range of universalising synthesisers; Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, Oliver Reiser, David Bohm, Arthur M. Young, Erich Jantsch and Ervin Laszlo are just a few luminaries here.  This should be a meta-categoiry actually.

o Inventors.  Buckminster Fuller and other interdisciplinary proponents of appropriate technology

o Wilberian – based on Wilberian and post-wilberian thought.  Emphasis on AQAL, Holons, Buddhism, Postmodernism, etc.  Andrew Cohen would also go here.  Also virtual communities like Zaadz (mostly) and Integrativce Spirituality (a fascinating new project with a gigantic website)

o Participatory – Participitary epistemology, spirituality, etc.  Rejects the old Wilberian authoritarianism.  John Heron, Richard Tarnas, Jorge Ferrer, and Michel Bauwens (p2p) are representative.

The above is a very incomplete list.  I haven’t mentioned Max Theon, Whitehead, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, Koestler, Maslow, Grof, A. H. Almaas, etc. Nicolai Hartmann is another important person, now mostly forgotten.”