Talk:Integral (Ken Wilber)

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Integral theory
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Integral theory

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

Need distinct discussion pages

I notice that Integral Theory and Integral (spirituality) share the same talk page. Is there some way to fix this? M Alan Kazlev (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that's happening either, but would like to see them separate. Joeperez69 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Thanks to editor Liquidluck, the problem is now resolved! Joeperez69 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Addition of "themes" for art and psychology

I see another editor has added these sections (back) into the article, but I'm not sure they're appropriate here (or I would have included them). The page has been redefined to focus on the use of the TERM or THEME of "integral" in SPIRITUAL movements, right? Art is not spirituality. Psychology is not spirituality. If there is a separate page warranted, then it would be a top-level page for each of these--and, in fact, there is. I would remove them and be sure that they are linked on "Related pages", lest the page begin to swell into another hodgepodge that contains extra-spiritual content. Other opinions? Joeperez69 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Sorry, I added those definitions to distinguish them from Integral Theory. e.g. a lot of Integral Psychology has absolutely nothing to do with Wilber or with Integral Theory as defined on that page. Integral Psychology as defined here does I believe fall under the rubric of Integral spirituality, since it is the psychological system associated with integral Yoga. I'll remove the section on Integral Art. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality?

I appreciate that the term "Integral" here on Wikipedia is probably going to go to maths, maybe "Integral (Philosophy)" is a better title for this rather than mere spirituality, because to suggest it is limited to spirituality is utterly non-Integral, surely?

--84.13.3.59 (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fork

This article reads like a fork of Integral theory. I think they should be merged. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the article with Integral thought; it was not only a WP:FORK, but also a WP:COATRACK for Wilber;s ideas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]