Does Andrew Cohen understand Integral?
Posted on May 31st, 2008
by 
MrTeacup
MrTeacup
On Big Think, the question is asked "What would it take to shift society from materialism?". Cohen's answer is spiritual realization or failing that, global catastrophe. This is pretty shocking coming from someone who advertises himself as Integral.
Materialism can mean many things -- it could mean Orange values, or it could refer to Maslow's deficiency needs (physiological, safety, social, esteem needs) as a whole - everything between Magenta and Green. Either way you define it, its impossible to eliminate and an Integral perspective understands that materialism has its place.
In the end, we have to recognize Cohen's perspective for what it is - Green values. Predictably, Green often has an adversarial relationship to Orange, critiquing it and pointing out how it fails, sometimes obsessively. The joy of rising to a higher level is sometimes accompanied by disdain for the previous level and the perception that it is an oppressive force, but it seems profoundly narcissistic to take those tensions that one encounters in one's personal growth, and project them on to a cosmic scale, where the fate of the entire human race depends on overcoming the previous level of development.
Materialism can mean many things -- it could mean Orange values, or it could refer to Maslow's deficiency needs (physiological, safety, social, esteem needs) as a whole - everything between Magenta and Green. Either way you define it, its impossible to eliminate and an Integral perspective understands that materialism has its place.
In the end, we have to recognize Cohen's perspective for what it is - Green values. Predictably, Green often has an adversarial relationship to Orange, critiquing it and pointing out how it fails, sometimes obsessively. The joy of rising to a higher level is sometimes accompanied by disdain for the previous level and the perception that it is an oppressive force, but it seems profoundly narcissistic to take those tensions that one encounters in one's personal growth, and project them on to a cosmic scale, where the fate of the entire human race depends on overcoming the previous level of development.
Access: Public
andrew cohen
August 2008 
Hey Mike,
You're one of my favorite posters for sure, but I don't think you got this one right. Andrew Cohen is not coming from a Green value sphere. For one thing, he answered a question that someone else phrased, so he didn't set out to attack “materialism.” He had to work with what was given to him, to answer the question he was asked. My bet is what Andrew really meant by materialism was what we might call personalism, which includes gross materialism (security, sex, etc.) and subtle materialism (prestige, accomplishments, etc.).
So he was referring to “spiritual values,” which in his book might be boiled down to giving, evolving, and living “for the sake of the whole,” the last of which is the fifth tenet of his teaching. When he talks about a catastrophe changing the way people live their lives, he means people stopping living for selfish or personal reasons and living for the sake of the whole. He's refering to a life of service to the whole as opposed to a life of service to oneself. His emphasis when it comes to “spiritual realization” is on the dynamic aspect of “Spirit” rather than the being or awareness aspect, though he talks about that as well.
You might be able to make a case that he doesn't integrate pluralistic values enough, but I don't think you can make a case that he has a Green value sphere, at least not with regard to his formal teachings. Green narcissism and a Green worldview are two things you cannot get away with in his community!
David
When he talks about a catastrophe changing the way people live their lives, he means people stopping living for selfish or personal reasons and living for the sake of the whole.
If “living for the sake of the whole” is a vertical move upwards to a higher level, I don't see the recognition that we must include the lower levels. When he talks about creating a new culture founded on enlightened consciousness, it does seem like he's saying that certain values are not included, like materialism.
Yes, it does sound like that. That's because he emphasizes the negate aspect of development. First one generally needs to negate something in order to move to a higher level; then, once that is done, one needs to integrate, or include. When a child goes from crawling to walking, he first, as he's actually trying, has to negate the crawling: “No more crawling! Time to walk!” Later he can include crawling when necessary or preferable.
Ken puts it this way in the fiftth of his twenty tenets on holons: “Each emergent holon transcends and includes its predecessor(s); preserves their being but negates their exclusiveness.” He emphasizes the include aspect more than Andrew Cohen. The two talk about it at length in the guru and pandit discussion titled ”Transcend and Include.” It's a pretty interesting discussion. Here's an excerpt from page 2:
“COHEN: I'm sure we both agree that we're talking about the same thing when we refer to your “transcend and include” and my “transcend and exclude.” But it might be helpful for us to clarify the distinction between the two because they're two parts of the evolutionary equation. And in the context of evolutionary development, when we say transcend and include, it emphasizes one side of the equation, and when we say transcend and exclude, it emphasizes the other side of the equation. Obviously the whole equation includes both.
WILBER: It's true. We are very close in terms of embracing both including and excluding. And as I mentioned in our last dialogue, there's a wonderful phrase from Hegel that everybody quotes: “To supersede”-and for us that might mean to transform-“to supersede is to negate and to preserve.” And that's what I call “transcend and include.” But transcend can mean negate. In other words, when you transcend something, you're leaving something behind; you're excluding something in a certain sense. And you're also including, and so the question is, What are you including and what are you excluding?”
Concerning materialism, it gets kind of tricky, doesn't it? It doesn't make sense, especially in the modern world, to take the Eastern route of throwing everything away and begging for food. Material things form a necessary platform for higher development. But one can easily get caught up in that. Virtually all of the culture is caught up in it, and there's a lot of biological conditioning as well. Unless one's in a sangha there will likely be no cultural support. So of course there's nothing wrong with this sort of materialism up to a point, and I think Andrew feels the same way; it's just when it becomes the path and the goal that it might preclude higher disclosures.
David