The Meaning of 2nd-person: Response to “Integral 2.0” and “There is No ‘You’ in AQAL”
October 03, 2015 17:14

The Meaning of 2nd-person: Response to “Integral 2.0” and “There is No ‘You’ in AQAL”
Ken Wilber

There has been, for quite some time, a considerable misunderstanding about how the AQAL Integral Framework views 2nd person (e.g., “you,” “thou”). I haven’t helped this, because although I’ve explained it, it is somewhat technical, and I myself have occasionally slipped into an easier, simpler introductory—but technically not quite right—way of describing it. But there was yet another presentation at this year’s Integral Theory Conference that gave the same bad misunderstanding (accompanied with some other serious inaccuracies), at least as I see it, so I thought it was time to address this fully.

The confusion stems around just exactly what “2nd person” means—because there are two very different meanings, and these are constantly confused. There is also a major confusion about just what has to happen for a “you” to actually become a real “you.” AQAL fully allows all of these meanings to be clearly differentiated—but it is exactly this lack of differentiation that causes the misunderstandings (and misunderstandings that virtually all of AQAL’s critics in this area perpetuate themselves).

Click here to read


| return to index | previous entry »

  © 2015 Ken Wilberhome | what's new | professional | personal | cultural | social | cool stuff site design by ursa minor