Polylogic: Bringing An End To The Monological Rule Of Law

Someone writes a book, that book becomes 'gospel.' That 'gospel' becomes catechism, dogma, doctrine. That dogma and doctrine ends up being handed down through generations. That's the Monological Rule Of Law: One way; One Truth; One Voice... One. Just one. Only one.

Take a predominantly 'oral-based' culture, with little concrete evidence for the practice of freezing Truth into words. Take an Indigenous people, like the Ojibwa several hundred years ago. There was no written Law. Truth was not frozen in symbols. For instance, if there was an issue within the Tribe as to how to deal with a specific dilemma they did not go to their DSM-IV. They did not go and look in a 'holy book' and attempt to read what God had suggested the People do when faced with this problem in the past. There was no fully 'Abstract, Dis-embodied, Mono-logical Rule Of Law.'

Rule of Law was arrived at through a process of Poly-logic. There was a cross-fertilization and cross-pollenation of Logic by bringing the various Clans together (Clans that were representative of the intrinsic differences amongst the Tribespeople) in order to allow the different perspectives on the issue/problem. There was not one person making the decisions. There was not one book referred to. There was not even one God prayed too. There was diversity and difference and... dare I f*&in' say... an integrally-informed practice that few if any in the Integral Community, ala Ken Wilber, have yet to embody in a substantial way (so much for those backward Injuns, huh?).

What we have in the present Integral Community is the authourity of a single person seeking to co-opt and own, claim and posess what is and was already a deeply embedded form of social practice amongst many Indigenous Peoples. The danger risked at present is if this 'leading player' does not say it, write it, practice it... then it must not be TRUE.

And if want to deny that this is indeed the case then go ahead and make my argument for me. Tell me how often Ken has deferred to someone else when a big decision has to be made. Tell me how 'Integrally-informed' Ken Wilber is at the crucial moment when a tough decision needs to be made. when an institutional problem is being addressed, when the matter of the Culture of the Integral is being brought to the table. Tell me how often he has played the role of consensus-maker vs. 'this is my baby, and I am going to have the last word.'

Why would the Ojibwa gather the various clans together to make a decision. Is it because they lacked a strong leader? Is it because they were 'un-integral' and 'partial but true?' Was it because they didn't have a Ken Wilber in their day to tell them 'the last word' on damn near everything?

Perhaps it was because there was an inherent understanding of the differences amongst people and that any monological approach to problem-solving was bound to fail. Perhaps they understood that only by bringing people together with different skill-sets, talents, biases, perspectives, would they be capable of arriving at the best possible solution given the circumstances. In other words,  as a Social Body, a Culture, they spoke from the Heart, the Head, the Feet, the Genitals, the Stomach, and the Warrior's Muscled Arms.

 To me, and I don't know about you, that sounds awfully Integral.