The concept of “fake framework”, elucidated in the original post, to me it seems one of a model of reality that hides some complexity, sometimes even to the point of being very wrong, but that is nonetheless useful because it makes some other complex area manageable.
On the other hand, when I read the quotes you presented, I see a rich tapestry of metaphors and jargon, of which the proponent himself says that they can be wrong… but I fail completely to see what part of reality they make manageable. These frameworks seems to just add complexity to complexity, without any real leverage over reality. This makes those frameworks draw nearer fiction, rather than useful but simplified models.
For example, if there’s no post-rational stage of developement, what use is the advice of not confusing it with a pre-rational stage of developement? If Enlightenment is not a thing, what use is the exortation to come up with a chronologically robust definition of the same?
This to me is the most striking difference between “Integral spirituality” and say a road map. With the road map, you know exactly what is hidden and why, and it’s evident how to use it. With Wilber’s framework, it seems exactly the opposite.
Maybe this is due to of my unfamiliarity with that material… so someone who has effectively found out something useful out of that model can chime in and tell their experience, and I will stand corrected.
For example, if there’s no post-rational stage of developement, what use is the advice of not confusing it with a pre-rational stage of developement?
It’s quite different when CFAR tells you to listen to your emotions via focusing when facing a tough decision then when a random celebrity tells a person to listen to their emotions when facing a tough decision.
CFAR’s position would be “post-rational” in Wilber’s terminology while the random celebrity would be pre-rational (CFAR is a yellow place and not a orange one).
Is it really quite different, besides halo effect? It strongly depends on the detail, though if the two say the exact same thing, how are things different?
The concept of “fake framework”, elucidated in the original post, to me it seems one of a model of reality that hides some complexity, sometimes even to the point of being very wrong, but that is nonetheless useful because it makes some other complex area manageable.
On the other hand, when I read the quotes you presented, I see a rich tapestry of metaphors and jargon, of which the proponent himself says that they can be wrong… but I fail completely to see what part of reality they make manageable. These frameworks seems to just add complexity to complexity, without any real leverage over reality. This makes those frameworks draw nearer fiction, rather than useful but simplified models.
For example, if there’s no post-rational stage of developement, what use is the advice of not confusing it with a pre-rational stage of developement? If Enlightenment is not a thing, what use is the exortation to come up with a chronologically robust definition of the same?
This to me is the most striking difference between “Integral spirituality” and say a road map. With the road map, you know exactly what is hidden and why, and it’s evident how to use it. With Wilber’s framework, it seems exactly the opposite.
Maybe this is due to of my unfamiliarity with that material… so someone who has effectively found out something useful out of that model can chime in and tell their experience, and I will stand corrected.
Post-rational is a place of development, and it was named by various parties outside of lw terminology.
Integral becomes an organising principle for other concepts to rest in.
It’s quite different when CFAR tells you to listen to your emotions via focusing when facing a tough decision then when a random celebrity tells a person to listen to their emotions when facing a tough decision.
CFAR’s position would be “post-rational” in Wilber’s terminology while the random celebrity would be pre-rational (CFAR is a yellow place and not a orange one).
Is it really quite different, besides halo effect? It strongly depends on the detail, though if the two say the exact same thing, how are things different?
1) The audience. 2) The presentation.
I think the frameworks built on earlier work, and this review is not intended as a basic introduction (which would include the motivation/benefit).