Two books now currently planned
M. Alan
I've been very inspired regarding my writing, and have decided to divide my current project into two books. One will be about the Integral Movement as such, I'm going back to the original trentative title The Integral Paradigm. This will basically be my definition of the Integral Movement and what it is about, and will include a listing of various integral thinkers, as well as common themes and putting it in practice. The other book - very tentatively titled Self and Reality - will be my "theory of everything", in terms of the contrast between the relative self (which can be definied in terms of Yogic or Buddhist psychology and soteriology, Wilber's 4 quadrants, Haskell's co-action compass, etc etc) and the six perspectives or realities (physical-material, esoteric-subtle-causal, enlightened-transcendent, higher enlightened, and supramental), in which the last, the Supramental, represents the true Reality (as far as we are concerned). Of course there would be veen higher states beyond that, since both creation and evoliution are endless.
I haven't updated my website, Zaadz bio, etc as yet., I would rather write more and get something established, then I can summarise it.
As for the rest, I haven't been spending as much time on the computer as I used to in teh old days. I find it healthy to do other stuff as well, especially outdoors. Also in terms of internet forums, I have very little to do with Open Integral now. The whole thing I find much too dry and academic; it has nothing to do with true spirituality. I'm not knocking the people involved; it's a good project; just I'm not interested in it any more. More and more I realise how boring conversations based on words are. On the one hand, there should be more practice, whether it be activist in the world or yogic transformation of the self; and on the other an Integral Paradigm needs to have a spiritual, not a rational-philosophical, center; Integral Spirituality as proposed by Sri Aurobindo and The Mother means going beyond mental discussions and the limitations on the Reality they impose, to the essential Divine. It's the same with Sri Ramana too.
Two interesting books I've been reading lately have been David Korten The Great Turning, and Jean Gebser The Ever Present Origin (my comments here). Both have important contributions to make to the Integral Paradigm.
Access: Public
books
July 2008 
Hey alan,
What you say about Open Integral really is true. I was so inspired reading a lot of things you wrote on kheper and etc, but when I turned to OI, I just felt paralyzed by the terminology and just the overall feel of the site as a whole, and I'm a bit of an expert in spiritual philosophy. As you know, I'm also very drawn to Aurobindo's vision, and I'm not sure if Wilber, who I do not like, ties into Aurobindo's thought just because they both use the term integral. Any thoughts?
Maybe I'll be tarred and feathered for that thing about Wilber… =)
cool. godspeed on your writing bro :) keep it flowing…
Hi Arachnid - re your question whether any simlarities between Aurobindo and Wilber go beyond just use of the word “integral”, yeah I've wrestled with this question too, and in the end I came down to the decision of defining “integral” in keeping with the original Integral yoga teachers, scientists, and process philosophers (i.e. Aurobindo, Mirra, Whitehead, Vernadsky, Teilhard, and Gebser); then for the heck of it I added on Max Theon and his wife/co-worker Alma Theon, resulting in a nexus of themes and ideas and teachings developed in the first part of the 20th century. Then from that foundation I include the New Age movement of the 70s, the Great Turning/Eco-Social movement (Thomas Berry, Joanna Macy, David Korten, etc), the Wilberian movement, and the P2P movement (Michel Bauwens etc), and so on. This is the thesis I propose in The Integral Paradigm. As far as I know this is the first such attempt at defining the Integral Movement. So it isnt that Wilber and Aurobindo are similar, but that Wilber (like Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, David Korten, etc etc) incorporates certain themes (such as a panentheistic and/or evolutionary cosmology based on specific individual and collective stages of consciousness) previously proposed in different degrees by Aurobindo, Whitehead, Vernadsky, Teilhard, and Gebser.
re OI, yeah, this is what is wrong with Academia in general.
Thanks ~C for the words of support! :-)
Oh, I get it. So the book will be more like an original synthesis that you will make? That I look forward to. You seem to have a good ability to compare/contrast and uh, integrate diverse thinkers, alan.
About Whitehead: Maybe I'm too stuck on “liking” or “not liking” different thinkers, but I've looked into Whitehead and I think there's a fundamental flaw. He attributes a “change” or “movement” to God that to me just cannot be. God already is there. Even though the Divine manifests as this world, in Aurobindo's thought, and I totally agree, that doesn't diminish the transcendence of God in any way.
God cannot go through any process, because by definition, God is beyond change. That's the difference between matter and spirit in the first place. Aurobindo says, the only motive behind the manifestation of the Divine is the delight or joy of creation or manifestation itself. Therefore, there is no such linear “process” that the Divine undergoes.
Hi Arachnid
Well, the interesting thing (for me) is that Whitehead and Teilhard are so similar. And so is Teilhard and Vernadsky. And Teilhard and Aurobindo. So regardless of whether or not Whitehad acknowledges a transcendent godhead (I haven't even read any Whitehead, so I will ahve to before finishing my book!) is less important than the fact that he was representative of a whole cluster of emerging ideas that appeared indepenedently among different philosophers at this time. This is what I use to define the “integarl paradigm”
regarding whether God is changing or changeless, I don't see a contradiction - the Divine can be both, as explained in Tantra. Sri Aurobindo also (e.g. Synthesis of Yoga) distinguishes between the transcendent and the creative/immanent aspects of Reality, although obviously this polarity is only an intermediate level of realisation, as the Supermind would incorporate and transcend both (as indicated by the various experiences described by The Mother in the Agenda)
Hey Alan,
Sorry to get you caught in a battle of words!
Yes, I agree with what you say about this distinction being part of the intermediate realm, but can words really go further? =)
I enjoy Teilhard too and the parallels between him and Aurobindo are stunning, although I honestly cannot read Teilhard's writings at all, Aurobindo's I can.
I was just pointing out that I feel Whitehead is an intermediate mind at best. But like the different religions, they each describe different facets of something greater!
That said now I'll leave you to your writing =)
Actually, I forgot to ask you, what is the difference between enlightened and higher enlightened? (examples?)
I know the difference between enlightened and supramental.
According to Sri Aurobindo, beyond the normal level of enlightenment (assuming one chooses to ascend to Supermind, rather than withdraw into Nirvana) there are a number of transitional stages which give progressively more potent realisation (called Higher, Illumined, Intuitive, and Over-Mind), see The Life Divine; it's the 3rd from the last chapter. One can find similar descriptions in Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Kashmir Shaivism, Lurianic Kabbbalah, etc. So if one is enlightened but has also attained these higher states (which aren't yet Supermind) I use the term “Higher Enlightened” (or Transenlighetned). According to Sri Aurobindo in Letters on Yoga, Ramakrishna belongs here.