Hold your view without needing it to be the only one

State a view you care about, then write what it sees clearly and what it cannot see, without giving the view up.

Pourquoi ça marche

Hampson paraphrases Gebser that the integral level goes beyond mapping perspectives, meaning arranging them into systems, and moves into thinking and experiencing aperspectivally, that is, without any single fixed viewpoint (Hampson 2007, p. 122; Gebser p. 28 in Hampson’s numbering). Gebser’s own statement about the earlier mental structure is that it keeps its validity but gives up its claim to be the only valid view: “The mind retains its validity, but it does not retain its predominant position” (scan p. 384). Writing a view alongside its blind spots and the strongest form of the other view is one way to practise that stance. Whether it works is untested, and the link is interpretive.

Comment faire

1. Write your view on the disagreement in one sentence, in the form “I believe X because Y.”
2. Write two things that view makes clearly visible and two things it cannot see from where it stands.
3. Write one sentence beginning “Someone who sees this from the other side would say,” and make it their strongest version.
4. Keep your view, and note what it now lets you hold alongside it.

Données probantes

Mapping perspectives versus aperspectival thinking is Hampson’s paraphrase of Gebser (p. 122; Gebser p. 28 in Hampson’s numbering). The mind keeping its validity without its predominant position is Gebser’s own sentence (scan p. 384). The disagreement exercise is this page’s application. (anecdotal)

Gidley reports that for Gebser the integral is not reached through greater quantities of perspectives, which he regards as over-extended rational characteristics (p. 111). This is therefore not a way of collecting perspectives; it asks you to hold one view without making it the only one. Writing both sides can also become a way to keep the same view while looking fair.

Sources

• Gidley, J. (2007). The evolution of consciousness as a planetary imperative: An integration of integral views. Integral Review, 5, 4–226.
• Hampson, G. P. (2007). Integral re-views postmodernism: The way out is through. Integral Review, 4.
• Gebser, J. (1985). The Ever-Present Origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickunas, Trans.). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Erreur fréquente

Using the exercise to hedge while keeping the exclusive claim. The aim is to make the limits visible enough that the view stops being the only lens, not to dilute it into something you do not believe.