Integral Relationship Theory as an Example of the Non-Structure of Theory
"Luhmann pointed out that societies are not composed of organisms, but of the communication between organisms."
Integral theory is not truth, it is a means of bridging the four quadrants. I really, really want to teach this stuff to people in a class setting. It will come with frustrations that are, ironically, implied in the system. It isn't even a means to describe truth. It's a means to qualify the description of truth in its many contexts...
An example would be in a relationship (this will take some second tier ability to be understood correctly. Sorry. It just does.) ...
A relationship between two people is a structure. The relationship has an interior space, which we all know. The relationship has an exterior space, which we all know. The relationship is the structure that allows the two to be one. They will not grow without each other. Seems to me the 'best relationships' have the interior space pulling the exterior space up in intimacy versus the other way around, although there's no reason why this can't flip flop and still be appropriate for the present context of the relationship. In fact, I think this is necessary. Agency and communion between the two spaces creates the reality. You can go out (get objective) on the relationship. You can go in (get subjective). You can go holistic (two as a whole) or systemic (two as parts). And all combinations of the above: objective whole, subjective whole, objective parts, subective parts. Does the cummulative description of all of this, even if perfectly described, make the relationship? Why would we ever think this to be true or want it to be true? It's the description of the structure on which the true MEAT of it rests. And that meat can't be gotten at until the relationship IS. The fact that it IS is the MEAT. That's all. This is powerful because the structure changes but the presence persists in this ever changing context. And it never, ever, ever dies or lives because this is the ultimate flip side to the coin...... the knowledge that presence generates reality and that the presence of reality knows no difference. Not just between life and death or one and two. Literally knows no difference. Those of us who are tuned into the MEAT are fortunate because it is a source of boundless energy for the other side with which it blossoms and... blooms. Ken Wilber has transcended this flowery language and actually is describing this much better than I. He was in this flowery descriptive phase about ten years ago but now has reached a new level of clarity on the subject with his latest Integral Spirituality essay (warning... PDF), which I am LOVING right now. It is far better than any of his books with regards to clarity.
Integral relationship theory is not the relationship. Nor is it the structure of the relationship. Nor is it the description of the relationship. It's the hermeneutic of the description, which can be transcended when something better comes along. I will dance for joy when Integral Theory is dead because it means that something better has taken its place. This is not my cause, but it is my voice... for now.