Sunday, June 12, 2011

R. Michael Fisher - Integral Posthuman Destinies: A Critical Path

Michael Fisher has posted some interesting articles of late at his blog, World's Fearlessness Teachings. In his June 1 post, Integral Posthuman Destinies: A Critical Path, he praises Ken Wilber and also dismisses post-1997 Wilber (Wilber-V) as having lost his way. He prefers and promotes the pre-1997 Wilber (Wilber-IV and earlier), what he defines as Wilber's "emancipatory integral project."

Here is his claim:
My claim is basically that some if not many of the current branches of "integral" (the integral movement) are losing their way. I also feel that Wilber and his followers often fall into this distraction with other than the core integral movement or vision. I've written about this lots in terms of the way Wilber's work has gone astray, so to speak, onto other interests that have gutted the critical integral theory he promoted and developed in his pre-1997 period of writing. In other words, most of his work up to and including the early part of Wilber-IV is awesome core integral critique, after that it is more or less lame. Again, that's from my perspective of studying many integral theorists and most all of Wilber's work (since 1982).

To be clear, if you are a reader not in agreement that Wilber's best critical theory for emancipation came before 1997, then you and I will have conflict. So be it. I merely want to make this distinction which I do not see anyone else making in the current integral movement writing. I'm concerned the core emancipatory power of the integral movement, is becoming less and less a revolution, and more and more domesticated. Again, the main reason is, Wilber pre-1997 is "hot" with the firey passion of a revolutionary thinker and leader, but most all of his followers missed the real prophetic 'call' in it-- to the point, I hypothesize, that Wilber himself (post-1996) lost somewhat himself--or, at least he decided to take on other problems of interest to his emancipatory integral project. I don't hold that against Wilber for a second, I'm just disappointed he didn't stay in the earlier groove of his thought and synthesis.
Fisher dismisses moves to raise other integral thinkers to the same states as Wilber:
When I hear critics and/or detractors of Wilber's project, I see them want to bring forward some other integral thinkers (e.g., Steve McIntosh, Ervin Lazlo) and align them on the same playing field as Wilber. They are all integral theorists is the claim. One I find very uncompelling and lacking in qualitative distinctions. All the various branches of integral leaders and followers today do this more or less. They seem to believe they will 'neutralize' Wilber's outstanding contribution, even if they make their standard appreciation of his work. There are simply tens of many such schools (branches) of integral today (e.g., the folks at Integral Review or those writing on Integral World website, etc.).

My concern is that the branches of integral vision (wisdom and compassion) will loose their dharma penetration into the deepest problems of humankind and this planet. The branches split off and do their own thing, for the most part.
Among those he addresses directly in this article are Olen Gunnlaugson, and Michel Bauwens (he says, "I could have picked fifty others"). Gunnlaugson writes in the field of education, so he is someone I have not read, but I am regular reader of Bauwens's P2P Foundation blog.

I think there is some merit in his critiques, but when he introduced the section of criticism with the following statement, I found myself dismissing anything he had to say before even reading it:
But let me give the briefest critique of part of what they have published of late, and remember while I am doing this, I am not "R. Michael Fisher" doing this, although that is part of my identity, I am doing this from a posthuman (transhuman), RPG Merlin positioning, including the Mikhail Sacred Warrior, and thus, I mean, I am critiquing their version of "integral" from a fearlessness perspective. Obviously, I am not impressed with their overall lack of engagement with RMF's work, and with the importance of fear and fearlessness as a major construct in any integral education.
To be fair, he had already introduced in the article his new interest in role playing games (RPG), so he is using that trope to suggest he is adopting here a persona from which he may be more objective (?) in his critique.

Aside from that (in my opinion, bit of nonsense), he offers a thought-provoking perspective. And while I suspect he is aware of his own bias in his criticism (he prefers an emancipatory integral project), in that his work is focused on fearlessness training, and so, "My RPG was Fearlessness, my enemy Fear" becomes the foundation for his own integral model, which is briefly outlined here:
In my new book The World's Fearlessness Teachings, Figure 2.1 (p. 48) shows "Path of Fearlessness: Stages of the Soul's Journey." This is original, although I draw on other theorists as well. It is a critical integral model (theory) of the path of the soul (or call it an individual or collective human being)-- it is the path of a RPG actually-- which is the new insight here today. I drafted this map from my experience on the journey of life, and my encounters with fear and fearlessness. ... I use this diagram to show that when one travels the course of Naive, Victim, Survivor (still in 1st-tier) with Thriver on the threshold of the 2nd 'Fear' Barrier (into 2nd-tier), then you get the "roles" (like archetypes) that I have set out on this game board and grand narrative for the "Soul's Journey." The context of the journey in this map is one of having to battle the enemy which is the 'Fear' Project (again, look above to see the terms that Wilber's critical integral theory brings to inform this understanding and conceptualization).

It is a battle to become human, and then, if one makes it across 'Fear' Barrier-2, then one enters across the "quantum leap" (spoken by Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics theory)--then one plays with and puts on the roles of Sacred Warrior (and Magician), and if the journey goes deeper down the rabbit hole, the role of Royal Leader awaits you. I also make the distinction in this Figure 2.1 that we go from Child, to Rebel, to Adult--and if we go across 'Fear' Barrier-2, then we move into Outlaw and Lover (following Sam Keen's archetypes). These "types" are crucial to the RPG and, further more, to Wilber's AQAL integral theory. And I can assure you, such distinctions that I am bringing forth with these "types" are not integrated into the integral movement or revolution period. At least, I have not seen where they are. They are ignored or dismissed, or simply there is a huge blindspot in the integral movement because "fear" is still not seen with the dignity of its role and shaping of the human and transhuman project.
As much as I enjoy reading Fisher's writing, his own bias is as obvious as, say, Bauwens's political bias appears to him. His focus is on fear, and he reduces the "momentous" transition to second tier to a confrontation with and (using RPG terminology) victory over fear - the acquisition of fearlessness.

I disagree with that framing - Graves's original conception of second tier has to do with the ability (defined more clearly by Robert Kegan in The Evolving Self and In Over Our Heads) to takes one's own perspectives as objects of awareness - it is at this point that we can become "self-authoring" and eventually, maybe, "self-transforming." [A brief but useful overview of Kegan's work can be found here, and also here, by Terry Patten.]

Fisher's contention that Wilber-V lost its way by abandoning the emancipatory project is valid with the framework from which he works. For those of operating outside of that theoretical framework, things look much different.

From my perspective as an integral outsider, it seemed that Wilber had assembled a foundation of integral theory upon which following generations could continue to build - and I think it was in part the thought about "what comes after" that led to the Integral Institute and all the "mass production of heart" that I-I and Integral Life have brought to the integral masses.

Most of us try in our own ways to realize our immortality projects - we have kids, we make art or literature, he name streets or buildings after ourselves (or pay someone else to do it), or we create new and unique intellectual property for which we will always be remembered.

Fisher is doing the same thing with his book and blog (nothing ever really disappears on the internet) - Bauwens is doing the same thing with his P2P Foundation - I'm doing the same thing with my blogs and other work. It's unfair to critique Wilber for thinking about his legacy.

We all seek to leave our "mark" on the world, hopefully in a good way - and being "integral" doesn't change that - in fact, "being integral" would likely not be an option without Wilber's work - especially the Wilber-V material.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting and interacting with these ideas from my blog. I too appreciate Wilber's work (Wilber-V) and would not diss it in some shallow way, it is profound for what it is doing, and it is still emancipatory in its own right. I say this to reply to your comments above because you paint a picture (and say so 2 times) that I think "Wilber (Wilber-V) as having lost his way"-- and, well, that's not what I would say and in fact the quote you took from my blog at the beginning is my words: "are losing their way"--and that's a different claim. I merely am challenging to bring more 'counter-balancing' of a dominant hegemonic I read a lot in those enamored with Wilber-V. I would not proclaim I could tell Wilber he has lost his way--it's foolish to think that. My work is an attempt to bring back some core integral curriculm if you will--especially his Flatland critique (Phobos-Thanatos and Boomeritis, etc.)--the endarkenment integral teaching that he does so well, and that inspires me--and yes, I think it is core to the integral emancipatory project--and the better core to a critical integral theory--not just an integral theory that people espouse so commonly and drop the term "critical" in front of integral theory--that's where I get concerned. The longer argument I make in my book and elsewhere on my blog at various points is that there's a strong functionalist (postmodernist) tendency in Wilber-V and it is what it is, that's where Wilber is interested now.

Perhaps you are not into RPGs or even the arational, aesthetic and performative praxis that I engage at times, and do not at other times in my blogs and elsewhere--fine, call it nonesense"--and I'm glad it triggered something strong and reactive in you (or any reader)--that's the theatrical playing a part of knowledge modalities and registers of affect. I am appreciative you continued however to engage the discourse--and that holds well in my books for any critic I have. The important integral work, for me as an educator, comes when there is disruptions and uncomfort, even disgust and fear, etc.... as long as we don't attach to that as the only response to our comrades and their work.

Your last point of critique is one worth further discussion, suffice it to say to keep my response short, is that I do not reduce, as you suggest, all dynamics of first to second-tier as only about "fear." I use many models and theories (Beck, Wilber, Kegan, Cook-Geuter, etc.) to articulate that dynamic, I am merely pointing to what is left out of those discussions regularly or at least is not systematically nuanced--and that is the fear-factor (or more importantly 'fear' as construction in the vein of Phobos-Thanatos dynamics)--I pick up on one stream of that transition across the abyss, so to speak--however, I take it pretty deep (not merely about fear as a feeling or emotion). Again, that's all in my other writing in great detail.

I cheer for anyone's immortality project, as does Harryman, however, there is a distinction in integral theory (pre-1997 Wilber) where there is a healthy immortality project and there is a pathological one too--that distinction needs to be ferreted out continually. Thanks be to Wilber and all those promoting that distinction, it impacts everything!

In summary, Wilber's newer Wilber-V is emancipatory, and I would not claim otherwise.

Anonymous said...

For those interested in a more nuanced and longer response to Harryman's challenge re: 1st-tier to 2nd-tier (and the role of fear), then go to my latest blogpost where I have elaborated a more substantial critique of developmental psychologist-types and their models of human development which tend to dominate the imaginary of most integral folks today (especially, in the Wilber-V generation).

http://fearlessnessteach.blogspot.com
June 14, 2011 "Harryman's Critique re: Posthuman Destinies."