In this paper, I explore possible contributions of the Time, Space, Knowledge vision to Integral Studies, particularly in the context of teaching Integral Theory in the classroom. I contend that such a comparative work is merited on two accounts: the post-metaphysical orientation of both visions provides the theoretical foundation, and the emphasis in these traditions on inquiry grounded in a post-metaphysical perspective provides the practical foundation. The latest phase of Integral Theory emphasizes the need to develop a spiritual and philosophical paradigm that is sensitive to and inclusive of the important contributions of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern thought, and Ken Wilber recommends Integral Methodological Pluralism as a means of achieving this. I argue that TSK, as a living spiritual tradition that is alive to a postmodern, post-metaphysical sensibility and which includes a sophisticated praxis for disclosing these insights, may help teachers to powerfully elucidate or experientially ground key concepts of Integral Theory.
For the past three decades, beginning with the publication in the same year of Ken Wilber's (1977) Spectrum of Consciousness and Tarthang Tulku's (1977) Time, Space, and Knowledge, two visions of remarkable originality and integrative power have been unfolding side by side, with apparently little or no contact between them. But while their influence on each other has been negligible, their influence on contemporary intellectual culture has not been. Wilber's Integral philosophy is the inspiration behind such ambitious projects as Integral Institute and Integral University, and his books have been translated into twenty languages (Wilber, 1995). Tarthang Tulku's TSK vision has had less of a cultural impact overall, but his books have been adopted for use in over 100 university courses and programs around the world, and have inspired scholarship in fields as diverse and numerous as those that grace the roster of Integral University (Tarthang Tulku, 1990).
Given the breadth and inclusiveness of these two visions, and in particular the remarkable integration of traditional, modern, and postmodern concerns that each achieves, it is surprising that little if anything has been written on the consonance of their perspectives, or on their potential to contribute to each other. My own interest in exploring their relationship began only recently, as I was reflecting on Wilber's latest writings, particularly those that critics now classify as Wilber-5. Although I have been an active student of both visions for the past fifteen years, practicing TSK periodically while preparing for a career as an integral educator and writer, I had always kept them insulated from each other in my mind and had not considered any sort of comparative study until Wilber (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) began to articulate the particulars of what he calls Integral Post-Metaphysics and Integral Methodological Pluralism. I believe these important new developments in his theory open the way for potentially fruitful interaction with TSK on a number of levels, and I intend explore several of them here in some detail.
Wilber (2005e) claims that he has been thinking in post-metaphysical terms for the past ten to twenty years, but only recently has he begun to clearly articulate the features of this perspective. Early steps in this direction appear in Integral Psychology (2000), where, drawing on related ideas in the work of biologist Rupert Sheldrake and philosopher Charles Pierce, among others, he suggests that the abiding levels of the Great Chain of Being might be understood better as Kosmic habits, established and stabilized over the course of evolutionary history, than as pre-given metaphysical realities (p. 154). As I will discuss in greater detail in the pages ahead, Wilber (2005d) elaborates on this basic idea in his recent writings in several novel ways, the most important of which involves the claim that the world is composed fundamentally of perspectives, not things or processes or even perceptions (Part 1, Integral Post-Metaphysics section, para.9).
Wilber (2005e) regards the development of a post-metaphysical perspective as a revolutionary, "abruptly original" aspect of his theory, and as absolutely essential to the viability of integral spirituality in the modern world. I share his conviction that such a development is important - his passion in this regard is contagious, and the fruits of his own work in this area are impressive - but I do not believe Wilber-5 represents the first thorough-going post-metaphysical spirituality to have emerged in our times. This honor is due, in my opinion, to the Time, Space, Knowledge vision, which, as a phenomenological tradition of inquiry grounded in non-dual wisdom and sensitive to post-modern critical philosophy, has been breaking new ground for the past three decades.
In an online introduction to the excerpts from his forthcoming Sex, Karma, and Creativity, Wilber (2005e) observes that all of the major wisdom traditions developed by modern philosophers in recent years, from Aurobindo to Adi Da to Almaas, remain bound to metaphysical models of reality which ultimately compromise their viability in the post-modern landscape (Introduction section, para. 6). He does not mention TSK among these modern traditions, however, nor does he reference it elsewhere in his writings. I assume that this is due to a lack of familiarity with it, rather than any disregard for its contributions. In a brief personal exchange with me several years ago, Wilber remarked that he remembered reading Time, Space, and Knowledge when it first came out in the 1970s, but apparently he has not looked at it since then, or at the five books that have followed it in the series. When he asked me why I brought it up, I gave a brief response, but in that public setting I was not able to communicate the depth of my interest in the subject. This paper, then, represents an attempt to articulate what I would have liked to have said then - a fuller tracing of the shining outlines where these two great visions might meet and interact.
If my assessment is correct, that TSK represents a truly post-metaphysical contemplative vehicle in the Wilberian sense - and that is one of the arguments I will be developing here - then a number of questions arise. How does the TSK vision relate to the Integral project overall, in terms of its dominant concerns, aims, and methodologies? How might its practices and perspectives fit within Integral Theory's all-quadrant, all-line (AQAL) model? Would any of its practices be helpful for highlighting or elucidating features of Integral Theory? How might it encourage critical exploration of AQAL space, particularly its underlying structures and presuppositions? How might Integral Theory facilitate similar critical assessments of TSK?
A sympathetic survey of TSK and Integral Theory reveals a number of common concerns and approaches. To help us get oriented, I will highlight some of the important ones here. The first common feature is the one I have been discussing - the common post-metaphysical orientation that first inspired me to take up a comparative study of the two traditions - but the others also describe points of contact that invite further exploration:
While these features show up quite differently in the two traditions, I believe the common core of concerns and perspectives they evidence is grounds for optimism that a comparative study of this sort will be especially fruitful. My aim, in any case, is to point the way toward fairly concrete ways they may interact, and to suggest areas for further exploration.
Because the complexity of these visions provides for so many points of contact, however, with each inviting its own line of inquiry, I would like to adjust the "focal setting" of this study to a particular domain of integral practice. I believe this practical focus will serve to highlight the different ways the core concerns manifest within these traditions, and will more clearly illustrate their potential for mutual enrichment.
With Integral University scheduled to open later this year, and with Wilber (2005d) optimistically predicting an explosion of interest in applications of Integral Theory to fields as diverse as psychology, art theory, and business (Part 1, Integral Post-Metaphysics section, para. 2), teachers trained in the Integral model will likely be in greater demand in the near future. Degree programs built upon and explicitly teaching the AQAL framework are already being offered at the graduate level1, and there is no reason not to expect additional programs to open as the Integral model becomes more widely known.
Reflecting on these prospects, and upon my own interest in the field, I have decided to explore how the TSK vision, and certain relevant TSK practices, might be used in the classroom to facilitate inquiry in AQAL space and to deepen pedagogical methods in Integral educational programs. The post-metaphysical turn in Integral Theory has brought inquiry to the fore, in the development of a meta-paradigmatic approach to inquiry and research which Wilber (2005b, 2005c) calls Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). As a post-metaphysical tradition of inquiry, TSK might have much to offer in this area. Its focus on awakening an unbounded spirit of inquiry and challenging traditional modes of knowledge acquisition, for instance, may be of particular interest to teachers of AQAL metatheory.
1. John F. Kennedy University, in Pleasant Hill, CA, offers Master of Arts degrees through its Integral Studies Department, and will soon offer courses in conjunction with Integral University.
I plan to explore these questions and others in the following pages. In general terms, I am interested in examining the potential of the TSK vision to clarify, vivify, and/or experientially ground aspects of the Integral model, particularly as they are likely to be presented in educational settings. More specifically, I intend to consider the potential of TSK to contribute to Integral education in the following areas:
Many of these areas are sufficiently rich to merit independent studies of their own. For the purposes of this paper, I will examine several of the more salient contributions and criticisms that TSK may bring to aspects of Integral Theory or pedagogy, and will make suggestions for further avenues of research. With regard to the TSK practices for exploring features of AQAL space, I will discuss a number of them in an independent section, and will mention others at appropriate places throughout the text.
In addition to the above topics, I plan to briefly discuss a potential area of cross-fertilization which looks promising, but which is beyond the scope of this paper to properly address: the relationship of Wilber's integral calculus of indigenous perspectives to Tarthang Tulku's geometry of meaningful experience. I will touch on what appear to be several ways they might complement each other, at least as evocative symbol systems, if not as rigorous mathematical vehicles, and will leave the hammering out of details to a future project - or preferably, to minds more mathematically adept than my own.
Having laid out the inspiration behind this project and the general aims I would like to accomplish, I will turn first to a brief overview of the Integral model and the TSK vision. My interest in doing so is two-fold: to provide a basic orientation for those who may not be very familiar with one or the other of these traditions, and to highlight the basic concepts and terms that will feature most prominently in the forthcoming discussion. In this context, I will also discuss the literature I relied upon in conducting this study, which includes primary texts by Wilber and Tarthang Tulku as well as several essays on specific applications of TSK to different fields of inquiry.
The major section of the paper will focus on the five suggested ways that TSK can be used in Integral education to facilitate inquiry in AQAL space, opening up both the methodologies (map-using and modes of inquiry) and the theoretical components (holons, perspectives, prehensive unification, among others). Of the 120 TSK exercises that have been developed to date, I have identified 30 that I believe can positively contribute to the exploration and elucidation of key Integral concepts and perspectives in the classroom. I will discuss some of these practices in detail, and will summarize others in the text and a separate appendix (see below). I will conclude this section with several suggestions for future research projects, highlighting some of the commonalities between their mathematical systems as one area of possible exploration.
Having suggested several fruitful areas for TSK-Integral interface, I will then offer two examples of the application of TSK in non-Integral classroom settings, as reported by teachers who have written about their experiences. These accounts, while not directly related to the issues of Integral education, will nevertheless serve to illustrate some of the processes and insights discussed throughout the paper. Following the teachers' accounts, I will include several examples of students' testimonies about the effects of TSK inquiry, drawn from published reports as well as from the unpublished journal of a TSK practitioner.
In conclusion, I will review the significant findings of the study as well as some of its limitations. For interested readers, I will also attach several appendices containing a glossary of terms (Appendix 1), lists of exercises (Appendix 2), and a suggested course syllabus (Appendix 3).
Continue to page 2