This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am concerned regarding claim in the lead of

"The concept is also referred to as integral approach,[7][8] integral consciousness,[9] integral culture,[10][not in citation given] integral paradigm,[11] integral philosophy,[12][13] integral society,[14] integral spirituality,[15] and integral worldview.[9] "

seems like inference and a wiki:original research should we delete this claim ?Shrikanthv (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss here please regarding ambiguity or "disambigator" the WP:NAMB itself mentions an example of tree where it could be allowed and this makes sense here --Shrikanthv (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of hatnotes is to show a reader who accidentally landed on the wrong page, where the right one is. A person looking for "integral theory" will not land here, they will end up at Integral theory. Therefore this is a redundant hatnote - The only way to get here is to search specifically for Ken Wilber's integral theory. --Muhandes (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For three years, I taught a course on integrative and postmodern psychology at a doctoral clinical psychology program where "Integral Psychology" was a required text (not my choice). After years of grappling with his ideas through his books and recorded interviews, I found there is little to Wilber's "philosophy" beyond arranging others' ideas to reach the conclusion that Wilber's spirituality (much of it borrowed from Sri Aurobindo) is the highest form of human development. Wilber essentially repackages the concept of self-actualization as a transcendent spiritual achievement. He attempts to co-opt most other traditions; and those types of religion and spirituality that don't conform to his synthesis he derides as primitive. The logical parts of this theory are actually fairly basic: developing oneself in all areas to be a well-rounded and self-aware person. The rest is simply his attempt to make himself out as a guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C100:18D0:0:0:0:F32E (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mforman30: some minor points:

• the phrase "A multi-year exchange was had vis-à-vis multiple symposia" is not clear yet.
• "participants at the first academic Integral Theory Conference in 2008 had largely mainstream academic credentials" - the addition of "academic" to ITC makes the phrase "had largely mainstream academic credentials" odd: for an academic conference it's not unusual to have academic participants, is it? And it raises the question what "academic conference" means, and if only academics were allowed.
• "In addition, a select group of the white papers submitted for the 2008 conference were later edited and compiled by Esbjörn-Hargens in a peer-reviewed text."

• did they bundle the white papers to counter criticisms? If not, "in addition" should be removed;
• "peer-reviewed text": I suppose that text is "Integral Theory in action

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This table does not seem to belong here. Is there an article on the topic? If so, we should just link to it as a main article. If not, the table is simply a form of original research or synthesis, even though there are citations, the material should be presented in a textual, explanatory form somewhere. Is it? Same with the other table. This is not how we normally present complex theories. Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]