Diamonds of Integral Philosophy

* Book: Diamonds of Integral Philosophy. An outline of the book “Integral Philosophy”. by Johannes Heinrichs.

URL =

(revised version 2019, with an appendix “Spelling the Spell of Love”)

Excerpts

Johannes Heinrichs on Lived Self-Reflection and Methodical Reflection

The author of the book “Integral Philosophy” is much nearer to Sri Aurobindo`s understanding of “integral” than to that of Ken Wilber, which he characterizes as “fast food and overall philosophy”.

The most fundamental difference to Wilber is the author`s start from the human “Ego” as a self-referent or self-reflexive being. Where Wilber states that the “I” can as little recognize itself as a knife is able to cut itself, the author rejects this objectivism and sees the “secret” of self-consciousness and consciousness in just the capability of self-reflection.

This is also the position of Sri Aurobindo, which he shares with the greatest representatives of European and Indian thought. Sri Aurobindo doesn`t aim at an epistemologically systematic way of thinking, and therefore does not begin from a “critical” theory of knowledge, which is the standard of European philosophy after René Descartes and Immanuel Kant. The author accepts these critical standards as indispensable for an encounter of academic philosophy between Indian wisdom teaching and spiritual teaching. The point of departure from the human “Ego” (“I”) needs clarifications.

Firstly, we must distinguish the real philosophical or transcendental “I” which is nothing else than an activity being aware of itself before any objectification, just from the self-objectifications that form the empirical or psychological “Me.” If human cognition began only with objects, including an objectified “Me,” Wilber would be right on this point. In that case, a really “integral” philosophy would be impossible from the very beginning, because the seeing instance, the Seer, could not see himself. Philosophy would be damned to follow the object-sciences or religious traditions as Wilber does. Integral philosophy means, on the contrary, an independent philosophy with her own source of cognition, which is firstly the pre-objective, implicit self-cognition, secondly the explicit or theoretical reflection on the first one.

The author also speaks of a lived or ontological self-reflection in contrast to the subsequent and objectifying theoretical self-reflection (which is still something different from, but nearer to the psychological self-image).

Secondly, the departure from “I” as a self-reflexive entity does not mean at all that there is any “I” separated from the first world of objects nor from the second world of other subjects nor from the third world of cultural sense. On the contrary, being a self-relating entity, the “I” is essentially related to the “first world” of the objects, to the “second world” of subjectivity, including other subjects (beginning with the mother) and to the “third world” of sense, all at the same time.

The latter world includes not only the cultural level, represented by language, but also the trans-cultural Sense, which is infinite. The human being is capable of the thought “All,” capable of the Infinite! This is the decisive fundament of all spirituality and all “theological” thought, as we shall see.

If we speak (with the philosophers G. Frege and R. Popper) of worlds 1, 2 and 3, this is a certain concession to what is current, because this enumeration is lacking the essential difference of the “I” and “You”, putting both I and You under the common title “subjects”. But the I-experience is not the You-experience, which is a social one. It is true that the three worlds are only for the “I,” as objective phenomena (1), as the experienced social world (2), and as the world of common language and sense (3).

Nevertheless, the activity-experience of the “I” is absolutely fundamental. It is fundamental not only for our critical departure, but undoubtedly (in difference to the objects), it is constantly, always and ever, the fundament of all the three other “worlds” and experiences. The self-experience is the only subject-world, whereas the other worlds are object-worlds (if we take the word “object” in a wider sense, for otherness). The subject-world is the most indispensable and the most forgotten and misinterpreted, a “world” of its own. Therefore an integral philosophy must take it into account, all the more.

For logical reasons (namely the reflection levels which soon will become evident), the author prefers the following succession for the four “worlds” or the four sense-elements, as he calls them, because they are present in any human experience or action:

1. Objectivity or world of objects (world 1)

2. Subjectivity or subjective world of self-experience (world 2)

3. Inter-subjectivity or social world (world 3)

4. Medial world of Sense (world 4)

A brief summary of the structured ensemble of the sense-elements:

1. I AM, by reflecting myself implicitly and spontaneously. I am a being of selfreflection, first implicitly, than also explicitly. My implicit self-conscience is just the knife which cuts itself! This is the “wonder” of self-consciousness.

2. IT is, acknowledged by me as an object, objectified by me and more or less independent from me.

3. You are reflecting me, in being reflected by me. We are active mirrors of each other in a reciprocal reflection (mirroring), which is double reflection on both sides: my reflection of the other`s reflection on me, the other`s reflection of my reflection on him. Such is full social relation, exept:

4. WE are united in the infinite Medium of Sense (universal knowledge/information), which we presuppose in creating it together further.

5. Center: All these elements are unified in the dynamical act of Universal Being.

There is an ontological triad seen from above (body - soul - spirit), but this triad is a reduction of the existential fourness from the standpoint of subjective experience.

From that point of view my I-experience is not identical with the I-experience of the Other, and the social interrelation is not reducible to both or any of them. This dialogical difference is part of dialogical thinking, which is not given with those who speak of “three worlds” only"

The Spiritual Dimension of Democracy

Johannes Heinrichs:

Reflection levels as fundamental law of the social system and the misunderstood truth of caste system

“Most important of all, the individualistic age of Europe has in its discovery of the individual fixed among the idea-forces of the future two of a master potency which cannot be entirely eliminated by any temporary reaction. The first of these, now universally accepted, is the democratic conception of the right of all members of the society to the full life and the full development of which they are individually capable.” (Sri Aurobindo, The Human Cycle, p. 24)

It happens rarely, if at all, that the organisation of our societies is dealt with as a general philosophical issue, or as one of fundamental and spiritual importance. “Political philosophy” seems a mere application, not a basic dimension of philosophy. This is due to the fact that most traditional philosophies are monologist in their departure.

But if the inter-personal relation, the dialogue with other persons, is constitutive for a subject, as shown in chapter 1, there results a dialogical thinking which is expressed in the famous sentences of Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), pupil of Hegel:

- “True dialectic is not the monologue of thinker with himself, but the dialogue between I and You.”- "The first object of man is man himself. The sense of nature (...) is a comparably future product. The other person is the bond between me and the world. I am and feel myself depending on the world, because I first feel myself dependent on other humans."

In relation to the other persons, the reflection, which is so constitutive for selfconsciousness, reaches a totally different dimension: The interpersonal reflection becomes practical - that means changing the interpersonal relations and changing the persons themselves.

There are Four Levels of Interpersonal Reflection:

1. Instrumental action with reference to the other (and handling of the other), e.g. treatment by a doctor or pre-personal business, where the other is only seen in the context of things or money.

2. Strategic action takes into account the actions of the other for one`s own interests.

3. Communicative action responds to the expectations and desires of the other, not just with strategic intent, the track of self-interest (2), but for the other`s own sake; called also "altruistic" (derived from "alter, the other"). This communicative approach does not mean a particular altruistic attitude, but that it is nothing without successful communication. The respective subjective attitudes and acts are elements of communication, which enter into this and are subsequently diverted from this. It is for example possible that a partner wants to stay in communication, and the other does not, or that the current communication ceases. Then only the individual´s more or less "altruistic" or strategic attitudes remain. Successful communication goes beyond any subjective attitudes!

4. Meta-communicative actions or attitudes respond to the requirements and standards of social coexistence; these standards are mutually recognised, partly put into question, in any case, and are more or less regulated anew. The → social action was "classically" defined by Max Weber as an “orientation on the actions of others.”

If we think this orientation as practical reflection with the above leveling, the decisive structural constant is revealed: the four levels of social action.

The reflection levels shown above are the predominant components of social action. On the meta-communicative level, the interpersonal relation becomes a social system, dynamic and self-regulating. Systemic thinking means then that the relations are no longer seen from the view-point of the individual actors, but from “above,” from the community as such. And now, we look at the same levels of personal interaction as system-levels of a big community, as that of a state, and find differentiations which we all know – but normally without systemic understanding:

The four great levels of any society are called subsystems. They are nothing else than the reflection-levels we know already from the direct interpersonal relation.

The second division (subdivision) is given for understanding the method of fractal division, and for illustrating the richness of the subsystems. Here you find the sixteen areas of human and social activity which in a sense of social ethics will be further explained in chapter 9.

On the political level 2 we could also insert (as is done in the book) the formal distinctions of the so-called political powers, traditionally legislative, executive, and judiciary power. Within the executive power we must distinguish, for logical as well as for practical reasons, the kind of executive, which has only to apply the existing laws, which is the administration (e.g. police, financial offices etc.), from the executive, which has the task and power to act and to decide for the community, which is the government. So we have not three but four powers or functions of the state in this logical succession: administrative (objective application), governmental (subjective power), legislative (intersubjective, communicative consulting), and judiciary (metacommunicative control). We will see in the following that this division of powers must be applied on each system level. Therefore it is already put at the right of the house, in the graphic. This is the first theory of social systems which is directly derived from the nature of the individual and the interpersonal relations! There can be no other satisfying social system theory.

Now let us briefly draw the conclusions for an Integral Theory of Democracy.

1. In our existing democracies the whole system is governed from below, from the economic sphere and from a “capitalist” money system, which is quite dubious. Even if religion or serves as ideology of justification or diversion, the human basic values are not really leading the whole of society. And even if the money-system was in order, the governing of the system from below (“money rules the world”) basically cannot be accepted. Everybody knows that, but nobody knows how to change it – except many fanatics of another money-system. Even if they are right in their economic field, they are very wrong from an integral point of view. The whole of a society cannot be changed from the economic field alone! To try that means to repeat the historical mistakes of Marxists as well as of liberals and neo-liberals.

2. In our existing democracies around the world, the political parties are decisive. These parties bundle all problems (basic values of culture, foreign issues, inner politics, and the economy) and are chosen by their electors for all this – that means for nothing.

Apart from many other weaknesses of the parliamentary system these seem to be the most general and crucial ones. Now, the remedy of these weaknesses is not at all the abolishment (or a further weakening) of parliament (e.g. by direct democracy of plebiscites, which is either only an ornamental addition or totally inept for a big state), but on the very contrary, the further development and inner synthesis of direct and parliamentary democracy.

Let us briefly come to serious solutions which follow logically and rather simply from the above system analysis.

Ad 1: Governing from above, from the basic values instead of from below is possible by the differentiation of the parliament according to the system levels. That means four chambers of the parliaments with a hierarchical legislation-power.

Ad 2: The representatives must be elected for each chamber independently. In this way, the elections become at the same time matter-decisions. The parties (federations of candidates with the same aims) become matter-specific parties instead of power-parties which claim to cover all issues.

The decisions of the upper parliaments are binding for the lower ones. The existing second chambers, the House of Lords, the Senate, or the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) could constitute the third level, safeguarding the cultural diversity of the partial states.

There must also be a circular feedback from the “lower” chambers to the upper ones. This can easily be provided by several parliamentary “lectures” in which the representatives of each chamber can publicly give their statements to any legislative project.

Taking into account the vote of the other chambers - as well as that of extraparliamentarian social groups - contains the circular feedback. If a clear majority of all three other chambers presents converging concerns against a bill, it would be factually as well as tactically unwise to ignore these concerns, even if by the hierarchical point of view this would be legal. So the votes of the chambers 1 and 2 undoubtedly have influence on the deputies in chambers 3 and 4 and vice versa. As the members of parliament must all four years (for example) face re-election, although not all at the same time, there is a feedback-circuit.

There are many practical questions concerning the rhythm of independent elections for each chamber, concerning the number of parliamentarians (which must not increase, on the contrary!), and concerning a possible corresponding division of the government and the administration in the proper sense, etc.

The real main question is: How to win the minds and hearts of people, especially the members of the political and economic class? Besides an already rather numerous agreement among “normal” people, there must be forerunners among the elite, people of influence, which have not only the intellectual capacity to recognize the unique value of this model, but above all the spiritual drive or motivation to stand for it. Still more than for truth-finding alone, it needs spiritual qualities for the realization of truth and justice. For there are too many privileged circles which are against such a big change, even though it would be for the wealth of all."

Author bio

Prof. Dr. Johannes Heinrichs:

"Born 1942 in Duisburg/Rhine, Germany, studied philosophy, theology and social sciences at various German universities, and in Paris. He lectured philosophy in Frankfort and Bonn, and social ecology in Berlin (Humboldt-University). A summary of more than 30 books by him appeared in English language under the title “Integral Philosophy” (Stuttgart – New York). He developed a “reflection theory” which is an original up-to-date development of German idealism. By his systematic approach he opposes to the mere historicisme of most mainstream philosophers, also by the spiritual character of his very methodical philosophy. In spiritual respect he is nearest to Sri Aurobindo and a friend of Auroville."

More information

• Website: https://www.johannesheinrichs.de