New tools for understanding a turbulent world - Thomas Homer-Dixon

Today's social sciences have difficulty providing conceptual, analytic and predictive tools that help policy-makers and the public address contemporary global problems such as financial crises, energy shocks, food price spikes and climate change. In his Big Thinking lecture at Congress 2012, Thomas Homer-Dixon provides some guideposts to understanding complexity science and its potential relevance to practical social science. He suggests that policy advice from the social sciences often assumes individual rationality, an aggregation of individual rational choice into group behavior, the progression of social systems towards equilibrium, and, ultimately, calculable risk. Homer-Dixon argues that humankind's most critical problems arise from emergent complex social and natural systems marked by deep uncertainty, positive and negative feedbacks and frequent instability.

 

Thomas Homer-Dixon holds the CIGI Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Canada. He is Director of the Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation and Professor in the School of Environment, Enterprise, and Development in the Faculty of Environment. Born in Victoria, British Columbia, he received his PhD from MIT in international relations and defense and arms control policy in 1989. His books include The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization (2006), which won the 2006 National Business Book Award, The Ingenuity Gap (2000), winner of the 2001 Governor General's Non-fiction Award, and Environment, Scarcity, and Violence (1999), which won the Caldwell Prize of the American Political Science Association. His recent research has focused on threats to global security in the 21st century and how societies adapt to complex economic, ecological, and technological change.

New Evolutionary Landscapes

The Mountain Path, or New Evolutionary Landscapes

by Jeremy Johnson

Excerpt: We've fragmented our consciousness. But in a more multi-dimensional vision of human evolution, perhaps to fragment is also to venture towards a new whole.

Evolutionary cycles tend to go through relatively stable periods, followed by chaotic extinctions, from which life bounces back in new complex wholes.

It may be that the cosmos has a universe pull, a natural tendency to work in such an archetypal pattern of expansion and contraction. Teilhard believed it was the force of love that pulled us into greater complexity and consciousness, the force of the future itself, tugging life like the moon does the sea. Perhaps in the mind of an angel, the future and the past are not divided by the linear arrow of human time, but instead overlap and fold upon each other so that they are interpenetrating and intersecting at infinity. The eternal and the temporal are woven right into each other, so that our dimension is merely nested in infinity.

In the course of human evolution, many of us are theorizing and speaking about "evolving ourselves." But if we want to dance with the angels on the head of a pin, we are going to have to begin to think like angels ourselves. How are we going to speak of multidimensionality without beginning to at least open up to it?

Read More @ Single Eye Movement

Visser on Wilber’s Views of Evolution

From Integral World:

The 'Spirit of Evolution' Reconsidered: Relating Ken Wilber's view of spiritual evolution to the current evolution debates

by Frank Visser

“In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious.” - John Stuart Mill

How should Ken Wilber's stance on evolutionary theory and neo-Darwinism be evaluated? Evolution is a central concept in Wilber's oeuvre as evidenced by expressions such as: "The Spirit of Evolution", "Evolution as Spirit-in-Action" and "Evolutionary Spirituality". For Wilber, evolution is a spiritual phenomenon, both guided by as well as heading towards Spirit. Yet, in mainstream evolutionary theory, the term "evolution" has quite different connotations. Does integral theory have a substantial contribution to make to the subject of evolutionary theory or is it merely producing metaphors that provide meaning and significance for those in search of an uplifting philosophy of life?

Read More: Here

DeLanda on Deleuze

Deleuze and the Open-ended Becoming of the World

by Manuel DeLanda

With the final mathematization of classical physics in the nineteenth century, a certain picture of the world emerged dominant, one in which clockwork determinism reigned supreme and time played no creative role, so that the future was effectively closed, completely given in the past. Although the set of equations with which Hamilton was able to unify all the different fields of classical physics (mechanics, optics, and the elementary theory of electromagnetism) did contain a variable for time, this variable played only an extrinsic role: once the equations were defined for a specific instant, both the past and the future were completely determined, and could be obtained mechanically by simply integrating the equations.

To be sure, this static, timeless picture of reality did not go unchallenged within science, since thermodynamics had already introduced an arrow of time which conflicted with the symmetric conception of classical mechanics, where the past and the future were interchangeable. Nevertheless, as the history of statistical mechanics makes it clear, much scientific effort has been spent in our century to reconcile time asymmetry at the level of large aggregates with the still accepted time symmetry at the level of individual interactions.

Thus, it would become the task of philosophers and social scientists to attempt to reconceptualize the world in order to give time and history a creative role, with the vision of an open future that this implies. Although there have been a variety of strategies to achieve this open future, here I would like to concentrate on two contrasting approaches. The first is perhaps best illustrated by the intellectual movement that is today known as "social constructivism", but which roots lie in linguistic and anthropological theories which go back to the turn of the century.

At the risk of oversimplifying, we may say that the core of this approach is a neo-Kantian theory of perception, in which individual experience is completely structured by the interplay of concepts and representations, but one in which Kant's transcendental concepts (of space and time) have been replaced by the conventional concepts of a given culture. The guiding image of this strategy may be said to be "each culture lives in its own world", an image central to many theoretical approaches in this century, from the cultural relativism of Margaret Mead and Franz Boas, to the linguistic relativism of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Worf, to the epistemological relativism of Thomas Khun's theory of scientific paradigms. Again, oversimplifying somewhat, the key idea in all these theories is one of "incommensurability" across worlds, each conceptual scheme constructing its own reality so that bridges between worlds are hard, if not impossible, to build.

More: Here

In Defence of Difference

“Scientists offer new insight into what to protect of the world's rapidly vanishing languages, cultures, and species.”

From SEED Magazine:

In Defense of Difference
by Maywa Montenegro & Terry Glavin

This past January, at the St. Innocent Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Anchorage, Alaska, friends and relatives gathered to bid their last farewell to Marie Smith Jones, a beloved matriarch of her community. At 89 years old, she was the last fluent speaker of the Eyak language. In May 2007 a cavalry of the Janjaweed — the notorious Sudanese militia responsible for the ongoing genocide of the indigenous people of Darfur — made its way across the border into neighboring Chad. They were hunting for 1.5 tons of confiscated ivory, worth nearly $1.5 million, locked in a storeroom in Zakouma National Park. Around the same time, a wave of mysterious frog disappearances that had been confounding herpetologists worldwide spread to the US Pacific Northwest. It was soon discovered that Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a deadly fungus native to southern Africa, had found its way via such routes as the overseas trade in frog’s legs to Central America, South America, Australia, and now the United States. One year later, food riots broke out across the island nation of Haiti, leaving at least five people dead; as food prices soared, similar violence erupted in Mexico, Bangladesh, Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia.

All these seemingly disconnected events are the symptoms, you could say, of a global epidemic of sameness. It has no precise parameters, but wherever its shadow falls, it leaves the landscape monochromatic, monocultural, and homogeneous. Even before we’ve been able to take stock of the enormous diversity that today exists — from undescribed microbes to undocumented tongues — this epidemic carries away an entire human language every two weeks, destroys a domesticated food-crop variety every six hours, and kills off an entire species every few minutes. The fallout isn’t merely an assault to our aesthetic or even ethical values: As cultures and languages vanish, along with them go vast and ancient storehouses of accumulated knowledge. And as species disappear, along with them go not just valuable genetic resources, but critical links in complex ecological webs.

Experts have long recognized the perils of biological and cultural extinctions. But they’ve only just begun to see them as different facets of the same phenomenon, and to tease out the myriad ways in which social and natural systems interact. Catalyzed in part by the urgency that climate change has brought to all matters environmental, two progressive movements, incubating already for decades, have recently emerged into fuller view. Joining natural and social scientists from a wide range of disciplines and policy arenas, these initiatives are today working to connect the dots between ethnosphere and biosphere in a way that is rapidly leaving behind old unilateral approaches to conservation. Efforts to stanch extinctions of linguistic, cultural, and biological life have yielded a “biocultural” perspective that integrates the three. Efforts to understand the value of diversity in a complex systems framework have matured into a science of “resilience.” On parallel paths, though with different emphases, different lexicons, and only slightly overlapping clouds of experts, these emergent paradigms have created space for a fresh struggle with the tough questions: What kinds of diversity must we consider, and how do we measure them on local, regional, and global scales? Can diversity be buffered against the streamlining pressures of economic growth? How much diversity is enough? From a recent biocultural diversity symposium in New York City to the first ever global discussion of resilience in Stockholm, these burgeoning movements are joining biologist with anthropologist, scientist with storyteller, in building a new framework to describe how, why, and what to sustain.

Read More @ Seed Magazine

Integral Theory Conference - Enacting an Integral Future

It seems William Harryman of the outstanding Integral Options Café blog is the official blogger for the 2nd biannual Integral Theory Conference that began tonight July 29, 2010 in Pleasant Hill, California. The theme of the conference is ‘Enacting an Integral Future’ and it will continue until August 1, 2010.

Because Bill is, to our minds, one of the best bloggers out there, please visit his site and follow along as he, no doubt, will provide regular and insightful dispatches from the goings-on in Pleasant Hill.

From Integral Options Café:

Have you ever been to a conference and had the feeling that everyone is so enthusiastic about the topic or the theory? There's a kind of celebratory atmosphere - that's what the opening ceremony tonight for the Integral Theory Conference generated in the attendees.

It's contagious. [Although not for me, I'm very tired - sleep is contagious for me, so I apologize for any typos or errors in this.]

But tonight's presentation was more than cheer-leading, or celebrating - both Mark and Sean described this as the "get to work" conference, while the 2008 iteration was the "get to know each other" conference.

To that end, Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, Mark Forman, and David Zeitler (a core faculty member at JFKU), each spoke on the defining and differentiating of integral theory that has been occurring in the absence of new work from Ken Wilber (whose illness prevents him from finishing several books that are 2/3 complete).

Follow William’s Reports: HERE

Calling All Future-Eaters

Calling All Future-Eaters

by Chris Hedges

The human species during its brief time on Earth has exhibited a remarkable capacity to kill itself off. The Cro-Magnons dispatched the gentler Neanderthals. The conquistadors, with the help of smallpox, decimated the native populations in the Americas. Modern industrial warfare in the 20th century took at least 100 million lives, most of them civilians. And now we sit passive and dumb as corporations and the leaders of industrialized nations ensure that climate change will accelerate to levels that could mean the extinction of our species. Homo sapiens, as the biologist Tim Flannery points out, are the “future-eaters.”

In the past when civilizations went belly up through greed, mismanagement and the exhaustion of natural resources, human beings migrated somewhere else to pillage anew. But this time the game is over. There is nowhere else to go. The industrialized nations spent the last century seizing half the planet and dominating most of the other half. We giddily exhausted our natural capital, especially fossil fuel, to engage in an orgy of consumption and waste that poisoned the Earth and attacked the ecosystem on which human life depends. It was quite a party if you were a member of the industrialized elite. But it was pretty stupid.

Collapse this time around will be global. We will disintegrate together. And there is no way out. The 10,000-year experiment of settled life is about to come to a crashing halt. And humankind, which thought it was given dominion over the Earth and all living things, will be taught a painful lesson in the necessity of balance, restraint and humility. There is no human monument or city ruin that is more than 5,000 years old. Civilization, Ronald Wright notes in “A Short History of Progress,” “occupies a mere 0.2 percent of the two and a half million years since our first ancestor sharpened a stone.” Bye-bye, Paris. Bye-bye, New York. Bye-bye, Tokyo. Welcome to the new experience of human existence, in which rooting around for grubs on islands in northern latitudes is the prerequisite for survival.

We view ourselves as rational creatures. But is it rational to wait like sheep in a pen as oil and natural gas companies, coal companies, chemical industries, plastics manufacturers, the automotive industry, arms manufacturers and the leaders of the industrial world, as they did in Copenhagen, take us to mass extinction? It is too late to prevent profound climate change. But why add fuel to the fire? Why allow our ruling elite, driven by the lust for profits, to accelerate the death spiral? Why continue to obey the laws and dictates of our executioners?

Read More: Here

Sperber and Hirschfeld on Culture, Cognition and Evolution

Culture, Cognition, and Evolution

By Dan Sperber & Lawrence Hirschfeld

Most work in the cognitive sciences focuses on the manner in which an individual device -- be it a mind, a brain, or a computer -- processes various kinds of information. Cognitive psychology in particular is primarily concerned with individual thought and behavior. Individuals however belong to populations. This is true in two quite different senses. Individual organisms are members of species and share a genome and most phenotypic traits with the other members of the same species. Organisms essentially have the cognitive capacities characteristic of their species, with relatively superficial individual variations. In social species, individuals are also members of groups. An important part of their cognitive activity is directed toward other members of the group with whom they cooperate and compete. Among humans in particular, social life is richly cultural. Sociality and culture are made possible by cognitive capacities, contribute to the ontogenetic and phylogenetic development of these capacities, and provide specific inputs to cognitive processes.

Although population-level phenomena influence the development and implementation of cognition at the individual level, relevant research on these phenomena has not been systematically integrated within the cognitive sciences. In good part, this is due to the fact that these issues are approached by scholars from a wide range of disciplines, working within quite different research traditions. To the extent that researchers rely on methodological and theoretical practices that are sometimes difficult to harmonize (e.g., controlled laboratory versus naturalistic observations), the influence of these insights across disciplines and traditions of research is often unduly limited, even on scholars working on similar problems. Moreover, one of the basic notions that should bring together these researchers, the very notion of culture, is developed in radically different ways, and is, if anything, a source of profound disagreements.

Read More: Here

Organicism, AQAL and Integral Theory

Organicism 
By Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera

Abstract: This paper presents Archie J. Bahm’s “Organicism” as a Second Tier Metatheory based upon the analysis of intuited polarity . It shows that AQAL (or Integral Metatheory) can benefit from a more deductive (and Metaphysical) approach that relates with the logical-relational aspects inhering at the core of Integral concepts such as “hierarchy” “inclusiveness” and the central “holon,” aspects whose continued development were somewhat forgotten due to AQAL’s current emphasis on experientially verifiable external patterns.

Organicism complements Integral Theory and has fundamental divisions mirroring Ken Wilber’s quadratic holon aspects. Interestingly, unlike Wilber discovering universal holon patterns through observation of piles of answers of methods and theories visibly displayed before him during a brainstorming retreat, the a priori rational patterns in Organicism were discovered mostly by analytic exercise through the method of polar analysis. In this sense we can affirm that Organicism shows that deduction can indeed complement induction in the creation of Integral Theories (which are also theories of theories or metatheories). In my view, this has important consequences in relation to giving priority to the work of uncovering Exterior-based patterns through Integral Methodological Pluralism vs. giving priority to pattern forming essences that are prior to exteriority but can be disclosed by the use of reason. What is certain for me is that the patterns coincide and complement each other and this in itself is important to explore and inspect much further.

In another paper (“Integral Quadrants in History”) I show that some modern era individuals and -quite possible- a pre-hispanic culture also arrived to similar (and complementary) discoveries in relation to the quadratic aspects which seem to be discoverable through keen dialectic intellectual processes which are also available to mystery, deduction and reflection.

Organicim is a 2nd Tier philosophy developed before the early 1950’s by the late emeritus professor Archie J. Bahm. It makes use of the experienced, dynamic, polar relations of existence which are mapped along 2 axes defined by 4 extreme polar values. The fact that polar relations come naturally to the intuitive mind and that, thereafter, these can be carefully analyzed eventually leading us the discovery of patterns that complement Integral Theory’s quadrants, needs also to be observed.

As I understand and extrapolate from Organicim, the origin of holons is tied with the dynamic of complementary poles and two of any complementary pair gives rise to 4 extreme polar values basically corresponding to Integral Theory’s “Four Corners of the Kosmos.” These 4 extreme polar values (called by Archie J. Bahm extreme one pole-ism, extreme other pole-ism, extreme aspectism and extreme duality) express 4 basic polar and holon-associated relations which match AQAL’s “Interior” “Exterior” “Individual” and Collective” observed dimensions of existence. The ultimate result is a conceptual method for complexly dealing with complex existence.

I think that, essentially, Bahm’s Organicism was developed through a thorough logical analysis of the intuited polarities that become apparent when reflecting upon experience. In a sense we could call Organicism a Theory that came about through a priori deduction. In contrast, -if I understood Ken Wilber’s explanation adequately- the quadratic aspects of AQAL Theory were discovered by observing already formed patterns that grouped various theories. In other words, generally speaking, AQAL (and more in relation to quadrants) was discovered more through an a posteriori observation of the facts or through induction. Since Organicism is based on a more thorough logical analysis that begins with the inextricable relations of fundamental polarities, it seems to complement the pattern-recognition procedures involving AQAL Theory.

Read More: Here

Reflections of an Integral Theory Student - Part 3

The “Crazy” Creative Ideas of an ONLINE Integral Theory Student at JFKU - Part 3 ©

By Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera

Accompanying my undertaking of Integral Theory courses online through JFK University, I experienced insights, questions, and variations on the usual themes touched in those courses. If you already are conversant with Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, you might find this collection of reflections intellectually provocative and productive.

On An Unrecognized But Crucial “SHADOW”…

For spiritual transformation, for becoming more Integral, its (validly I think) in vogue to work with our shadows, with repressed aspects from previous stages of individual development. Yet, by observing the modern and post modern biases within many in the Integral Community, I’ve come to see that there’s something wrong and forgotten in the theory of psychological developmentalism normally espoused. I call it the “Inter Stage ‘Content’ Shadow” (or ISCS for short).

Let’s see…It’s easier, less challenging to move from stage to stage holding on to 3rd person concepts than in 1st person experiential content. The content I’m writing about is also cultural-stage related. This content represents meaningful 1st person experiences and discoveries typical of each stage and, when moving to a higher or more inclusive stage, is quite often repressed, thus becoming a shadow, an “inter-stage content shadow.”

The negative or freedom limiting side of the conceptual framework of a previous stage is overcome and transcended in the higher, more conceptually inclusive stage but the specifics of the experiential content is quite often more easily dealt with by repressing it. The healthy transcendence and incorporation/inclusion of is easier first with 3rd person, more impersonal “it” concepts. Content is often included as a repressed shadow, a taboo, a no-no. In fact, this is why “psychical research” and related parapsychological, subtle. Alternative phenomena are suppressed within the scientific and post modern stages.

Being a participant in certain modern-post modern cultures that still hold on to pre modern traditions may assist (even conceptual and ethical Second Tier individuals) in including some of the actual experiential contents of pre-modern stages. An Integral individual that has a pervasive bias or distaste for the value of genuine spirit communication (characteristic of pre modern stages) may not be sufficiently Integral in 1st person terms. An individual that characterizes all miraculous phenomena of the Mythic-Amber stage as only serving a useful social function is not choosing to be as impartial and objective as a modern thinker ought to be because there simply are occasional phenomena that a prosaic scientific explanation cannot deal with. These individuals hold shadows and as long as they do, their Integral life projects will be incomplete (and maybe even dangerously so). By pretending to be the forefront guiding force in cultural stage development they could also perpetuate a form of forgetfulness of all of the creative manifestations of Spirit, a forgetfulness as evil in the long run as the political and human abuses committed by the Churches in times past. For instance we know that Amber churches burned spirit communicants at the stake.

Nonetheless, in spite of the errors, abuse, mistakes and other blindness of the Amber cultural stage, is there room in Integral Theory to recognize Second or Third Tier knowledge encoded by the highest intuitive Intellect in First Tier Myths and dogmas?

The same goes for Post Modern thinkers who –as Wilber rightly points out- are engaged in a reductionist, monological, flattening war against the ideals of order and wisdom of the Orange-Modern and the Amber stages. Maybe this kind of inter stage shadow, having lived so long, having been revived for so long under different kinds of prejudices, is a really serious problem that humanity needs to become aware of heal and transcend if there’s ever any hope of fulfilling the most Integral and loving human potential in the –hopefully- emerging “Integral Age” or thereafter.

As individuals entering the Integral Stage of understanding it would be indolence to pick and choose what we want to include of the experiential wisdom disclosed in previous stages, if we deny any genuine, firsthand experience of the specific contents. To be a truly healing force in the world (and also in the long run) we need to put an end to the bias against first person spiritual experiences of pre modern stages. We shouldn’t limit the Integral Vision to become accepted as soon as possible into the academic, political, scientific world by perpetuating a denial of vital aspects of the Cosmos’ ontological Exterior and Interior meaningful expressions that aren’t not just (as simplistically said) eternally pre-given ‘out there’ but in actual dynamic evolutionary and involutionary relation even with what Post Metaphysical Pluralism considers as ‘creating grooves’ in the emerging, evolutionary process (as with partialness seen from the bottom up and from the exteriors-inwards). The whole situation is far more complex and beautiful and vital for all sentients than the pathetic over simplifications orthodoxically generated in regards to the significant inter-realm relations that our elegant (and otherwise truly promising) “Integral Theory” accommodated in its structure.

On The “Three Eyes” of Knowledge…

Can the "Three Eyes of knowledge" be used to disclose knowledge objectively manifesting in the gross and subtle worlds? Can we use the “cogitatio Eye” (the eye of the flesh) in an expanded sense (not just as an “eye” of the physical body but as an “eye” of the exterior, objective quadratic aspects of the Subtle Body, its exterior envelope-body-vehicle of energy)? Can we use the Subtle Cogitatio Eye for disclosing the objective aspects of the Subtle Realm (even with Integral Methodological Pluralism)?

Quite often it seems that the Subtle World has been diminished or reduced to its interior emotional aspects in the general discussions. There’s a lot of truth to it since through feeling we also sense subtle energies (and proportionally more because a higher ontological realm possesses a greater degree of Interiority than Exteriority than a Gross Realm which is further “away” from the Source in a relative, apparent and contingent sense). Nevertheless, there’s also an objective (albeit more adaptable or less strictly patterned) exteriority in the Subtle ontological realm and this needs to be integrally acknowledged and even scientifically explored.

Also, since the “Meditatio” Eye (the Eye of the Mind) can be used to disclose the mathematical and lawful patterns behind the Gross Realm it can be used to better understand in an intelligible way the Subtle Realm and the Causal Realm. Then again, the “Contemplatio” Eye (the Eye of Contemplation) can be used to experience in a spiritual way the beauty and sweetness, the unity, love and wonder immanent and transcending each Realm.

As INTEGRAL experiencers, intellects; as individuals with (several) bodies, (several levels of) minds and one spirit, we must incorporate San Bonaventure’s traditional view into a more inclusive and higher integrated view to embrace all the levels of reality open to the possibility of functioning with our “three eyes” throughout the Kosmic spectrum. Not doing so is remaining in the shadows in spite of our intellectual and technological achievements and, in spite of the great theoretical and practical promises of Integral Theory as it stands now.

On Wilber 5...

Is “Wilber 5” a stage previous to a higher integration that once again will include more of the essential teachings behind the almost abandoned project of remembering the forgotten knowledge and bringing the Sophia Perennis/Perennial Philosophy back to humanity? Do certain (now “post Metaphysically” disdained) realities exist in actuality at their own ontological level but only potentially for us until we disclose them, while the way we disclose them and interpret them at a specific altitude then becomes a unique co-creation (perhaps a more Integral middle ground position between the suppositions behind a strict Post Metaphysical Myth of the Given Constructivism and absolutely independent pre-existence)? Again, what is not disclosed interpretatively under human methodology and within an altitude does it exist in actuality at its own level but only in a potential way for us?

Moreover, in a holonic Kosmos in which the polarity of part and whole interplays, we can deduce that other ontological levels are required if there are Interior-Exterior-Single and Plural aspects in every occasion or manifestation. Whether they are understood as static or dynamic, as 'eternally pre-given' or as evolving is another matter. There's also potentiality and explicitness between the interior and the exterior the single and the plural, thus involution and evolution can interplay.

What does exist if it is not disclosed by human methodology? How can Wilber 5 and AQAL integrate the experimentally and methodologically and collectively shared disclosures that –for instance- genuine Instrumental Transcommunication seems to elicit in relation to specifics about life conditions in the sub divisions within the Subtle Realm ?

I think that Ken Wilber has not been careful enough in his –otherwise- wholesome writings in relation to the highly important, emotionally charged, feared, avoided fanaticized-over and unavoidably integrally fundamental concept of “Metaphysics.” There’s a confusion between "Metaphysics" (as Aristotle's writings placed AFTER his writings on physics), "Metaphysics" (as related to experientiable contingent realms of existence that transcend the physical realm), “Metaphysics” as wild speculation about otherworldly things, and "Metaphysics" (as the study of ultimate rational causes and the study of the essential nature of things).

On States As Vehicles for Actualization…

Perhaps States also bring with them the possibility of knowing the wider relationships that exist between realms and can assist us in using the “three eyes of knowledge” more completely in order to disclose and simultaneously actualize into our concrete Gross experience and exterior patterns the Interior reality of more outwardly expressive, inclusive or subtler realms (regardless of the realm where our particular exterior or objective body is operating). States may also be Integral to the way in which the degree of ontological reality and the degree of externalized structures in these realities relate to each other across levels, or, in other words, how the fabric of creation is woven together… but this is a serious matter for further discussion later on.

On A New Kind of Lattice…

With a similar pattern as the one in the Wilber-Combs Lattice, I’m proposing a “lattice” for knowledge:

The 3 “eyes of knowledge” X 3 basic expressions of reality (Gross, Subtle and Causal) = 9 basic ways of acquiring knowledge about reality. This means that the “cogito” or the eye once limited to “the flesh” could be used for Gross exteriority, Subtle Exteriority and Causal Exteriority. This also means that the “meditatio” or “eye of the mind” could be used for understanding the information patterns associated with the Gross, the Subtle and the Causal. Finally, the “contemplatio” or “eye of Spirit” could be used to experience in first person the immanence of Spirit in the Gross (for instance as in nature mysticism), the Subtle and the Causal. Then, a complete non-dual integration in understanding would be possible by experiencing all “eyes” as elements of one Spirit, our highest Self that would simultaneously transcend every possible object of knowledge beyond the Causally-defined, Subtly-defined and Grossly-defined parameters of contingency.

Reflections of an Integral Theory Student - Part 2

Reflections of an Integral Theory Student - Part 2

By Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera

Accompanying my undertaking of Integral Theory courses online through JFK University, I experienced insights, questions, and variations on the usual themes touched in those courses. If you already are conversant with Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, you might find this collection of reflections intellectually provocative and productive.

On Involution…

Evolutionary “grooves” refer to the formation of exterior patterns. These exist even in the outside of interiorities as, for instance, as the objects of the mind. Nonetheless, they are more clearly visible in what AQAL visualizes as the UR and LR quadratic expressions. But as the AQAL Model and Ken Wilber almost teach, there isn’t just Interiority, there’s also Interiority without patterns or “grooves.” It’s likely in the inside of Interiors. It’s the felt experience, the root of the “hard problem.” So, in an Evolutionary sense, patterns or groove making matters but –perhaps- in an Involutionary sense, the transmission of pattern-less interiorities also matter in a complementary and unavoidable way that AQAL (as an “Integral” theory) should consider.

What if the “amount” of exteriority refers to how contingent or illusion-based reality can be; more or less as the traditional Metaphysics of neo-platonic, medieval Christian and Muslim mystical theology and the Sophia Perennis (of Fritjoff Schuon and others) generally speaking agree upon?

The priority of Interior awareness (deriving from the priority of essence over form, of the unconditioned over the conditioned and of intrinsic meaning over pattern) may direct its exterior patterns (perhaps causally) into lower realms in a simultaneous interface with the generation of external grooves in the lower realms. The greater degree of freedom embedded in the exteriority of the subtler realm may constitute like a probable future to yet unformed exterior grooves in the grosser realm. In general, the grosser realm may hold the greater potential for becoming while the subtler realm may express the greatest actuality and freedom as it is associated with less exteriority.

Perhaps Involution coincides with Evolution in this inter realm exchange between exteriorities and interiorities. Thus, even subtler realm exteriorities in the Great Chain of Being should be seen as changing and not as fixed, eternal, pre-givens ‘out there’ waiting to come down into the Gross. Being exteriorities, they are contingent, they can be patterns and evolving. Exteriorities change in the Inter-Realm conjunction.

Perhaps the higher or freer Interiority, the one that expresses more as act or is closer to Absolute Being as ‘Pure Act’, seeks to bring concreteness into more complexity to allow the manifestation of greater Interiority also in the Grosser realms. Perhaps the lower Interiority seeks or has a drive to become more inclusive and needs to receive seed patterns from subtler realms in order to evolve its corresponding exterior patterns and complexities. This idea partially coincides with Ken Wilber’s “Excerpt G” in which greater complexity of exterior patterns is seen as necessary to manifest greater Interiority.

On The Buddha Mind…A Bit More

For the self (understood as coordinating a self-system): It's not fixed, it's not a process. It is not being as structure, nor being as becoming. It is not definable and, even these 'not' definitions, are not -all the way- applicable. Nevertheless, all holonic and describable phenomena, all ontological and epistemic phenomena (phenomena described by reason/logos) are empty, except for the Essence of self, also called in Buddhist circles "Buddha Mind." (refer to the once suppressed "Maha Madhyamaka" not to better known versions of Madhyamaka). Thus, form is emptiness and emptiness is form, but I think that the Essence of self, is neither. As Maha Madhyamaka teaching states: The Buddha Mind is not empty of itself.

Well, I think that that can be validly said (in the limits of thought, at the frontiers between objectifying reason and non dual state-understanding) as a pointer toward self and also to what is Real. Also note that this kind of less known (Maha Madhyamaka) Buddhism is more compatible and “Integral” with Western mysticism and with Indian Vedanta. This is important to bring Buddhist understanding away from its accusations as a nihilistic philosophy. Also as a major proposal of Medieval philosophy states: Essence and existence coincide in this self, this Absolute Being, this God, which, under this view is not unlike... "BuddhaMind."

On Types And Systems In Every Quadrant…

I think that our relation to Types is not absolutely necessary (or necessary in an absolute sense) and that, therefore, in principle, the relation can change. I think that Types are patterns and that patterns can change. They can be erased and re-written. Some Types may be more established than others but -in principle- they are not eternal or absolute. Perhaps the most essential patterns originate in the Causal Realm that may be related to the Turiya state but also contain some very very subtle exterior forms. It may be related to the awareness of formlessness because the very very subtle forms cannot be distinguished from the Formless Ground.

In the AQAL framework, (and this is a question) there are suppose to be types of cultures, types of social economic systems, types of personalities, types of forests, types of specimens, types of every manifested holon-occasion-thing. Right? These are variations on larger categories. There are also suppose to be systems in every quadrant...and, moreover, I think that every quadrant can be understood as inside or immanent to every other quadrant. This is because quadrants express holons and holons express duality or the dialectics of polar relations, as can be visualized in the Yin/Yan symbol. Even if systems are associations of exterior objects, they are in every quadrant and being in every quadrant they also depend on their own immanent Interior intelligence.

Reflections of an Integral Theory Student - Part 1

The “Crazy” Creative Ideas of an ONLINE Integral Theory Student at JFKU - Part 1 ©

By Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera

Accompanying my undertaking of Integral Theory courses online through JFK University, I experienced insights, questions, and variations on the usual themes touched in those courses. If you already are conversant with Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, you might find this collection of reflections intellectually provocative and productive.

On The “Forgotten” Buddha Mind...

Regarding the Heart Sutra in Vajrayana: Since form changes, it has no real substance and it is empty. Form is Emptiness-Emptiness is Form. Also, Wilber intelligently adds that modernity discovered that Form is Evolving biologically and in other aspects. This is an important observation that needs to be considered by Buddhists and others but I always felt particularly uneasy about the continuous need to counteract an alleged nihilism with which Buddhism can be interpreted. I found that there is a less known but historically important school of Tibetan Buddhism, one in which the concept of an essence is rescued. This would make Buddhism more compatible with Western and Indian forms of non dual mysticism. The once politically repressed Jonang Monastery espouses a tradition called “Maha Madhyamaka” which Wilber and other Integral thinkers would do well to revise to boost their discourse on Non Duality. It affirms that all phenomena are empty except that the Buddha Mind is not empty of itself. This has consequences.

On the Subtle Realms…

We need a clearer map of the subtle realms since they range from the archetypes to the lower astral, the psychic, the mental and may be combined in different proportions with physical matter, thus producing subtler and denser levels even of physical matter.

After “achieving” union between the causal (almost non externally embodied) awareness and physical (more externally embodied) awareness, or between almost non relative and highly relative awareness, we may continue evolving (beyond separation consciousness) in the densest or in the more subtle varieties of physical worlds. We may also continue or express ourselves in higher subtle realms or (if we choose to) in lower subtle realms, to be of assistance.

On The ‘Gestures’ of Holon Expression…

The gestures (or aspects) of holon expression and unfoldment also interpenetrate. They aren’t just simultaneous. They aren’t just correlated. They interpenetrate according to the logical possibilities available to polar pairs (interior-exterior, one-many).

There’s also a “we” (and an “us”?) between the individual objective (UR quadrant) and the collective objective (LR quadrant). My brain, my atoms are connected to my inner subjective life but also have a participatory presence in collective gestures of reality.

Perhaps the dialectics derived from polar analysis can be used to explore these aspects between upper & lower quadrants, both in the objective and subjective holonic aspects.

Quantum entanglement (like holons) is both an ontological fact and a epistemological concept. It seems to apply to the relation between the individual objective (UR) and collective objective (LR) quadrants/gestures/aspects. Maybe similar facts/concepts also apply to the relation between individual subjective (UL) and collective-subjective (LL) quadrants/gestures/aspects. Just as (probably in accordance to cosmological/physical theory) once all particles were one, all subjectivities could have been one.

Perhaps dialectical polarity-based analysis applies to the relation between interior and exterior-based 3rd person explanations about reality. It may also apply to attempts to analyze the horizontal relations between the interiors and exteriors. In a way, the interiors and exteriors also are ‘explanations’ about reality.

On Whether There Are Other Models Complementing Integral Theory…

In Archie J. Bahm’s “Organicism,” the 8 more widespread metaphysical explanations produced in the human world (various metaphysical answers to what is the nature of reality) are distributed along two axes in specific positions that (in a lineal way complementary to the area-occupying quadrants of IT) derive (under a different nomenclature) from the subjective, the objective, the individual and the collective dimensions. The patterns observed by Wilber were analytically deduced by Bahm using what could be understood as the basis of holons: Complementary poles. This gives support to the possibility of a priori intelligible structures accompanying the observable, empirical, induced quadratic pattern.

The Andean mystic cross or “Chakana,” the Jung-Pauli “Quaternio” and E.F. Schumacker’s “Four Fields of Knowledge” also possess holonic-quadratic characteristics which are previous, similar and complementary to Ken Wilber’s discoveries. http://www.integralworld.net/piacenza5.html

On the “WE” aspect…

Paraphrasing Ken a little bit, basically he says that “the ‘we’ aspect is the mystery: God as a linking hyphen between you and I. It is how Spirit is shared intersubjectively.” I basically asked: then how is Spirit also shared inter-objectively because why there are there detectable systems in every quadrant? Doesn’t this mean that quadrants interpenetrate in a way which is discovered not only by formal deductions but by dialectical implied relations? I see that this also means that the ‘implied’ represents a subjective aspect in inter-objective dynamics.

On including other recurrent (more prosaic rather than ‘divine’) mysteries discovered indistinctively in various stages of personal and cultural development…

If for ‘Integral practitioners’ every major school of thought has elements of truth that need to be recognized and honored, where’s acknowledgement of genuine phenomena associated with subtle energy research (W.A. Tiller’s “Simulator” research), collectively verified Brazilian Kardecian spiritism, ET contactee and abductee testimony and evidence (the Cometa Report, the Disclosure Project, collectively experiences in South America’s contactee group ‘Mision Rahma’), remote viewing (Charles Tart, David Morehouse), presentiment research on future emotions (Dean Radin, Dick Bierman and H.S. Scholte, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf), psychokinesis (Robert Jahn, Princeton U.’s PEAR lab), survival research (IANDS, Victor Zammit,), the temporal backward referral debate (Benjamin Libet, S. Hameroff, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html, http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/enm10a.html

What about genuine (occasionally physically and collectively) verifiable shamanic phenomena that transcend the limits of lineal time-space objective causality? What about possible genuine (still non-scientifically explainable, healing and otherwise) miracles, usually associated with Mythic or ‘Amber’ stage cultures? Can there be intervention upon physical matter coordinated by highly evolved beings in the higher subtle planes? What kind of interactions between subtle levels of matter and gross physical matter can explain any of these events?

How much of the (now considered ‘non credible’ ‘otherworldly’) phenomena discovered in -once clearly established- cultural stages should be incorporated into a truly ‘Integral’ mindset? How ‘Integral’ can we really be if we push aside these matters as simply ‘societally useful’ ‘cultural’ ‘mythic’ and ‘pre-scientific’? How can our understandings of holonic unfoldment improve by considering inter-realm phenomena?

A Case for Panentheism?

From Metanexus Institute:

"Neuroscientific Research on the Self: A Case for Panentheism?"
by Anne L. C. Runehov

In order to obtain an interdisciplinary understanding of the world that also includes theology, I believe panentheism, as a potential explanatory model of a God relationship to the world, needs to be revisited. Naturalistic explanations leave out the possible existence of God, and hence deprive millions of religious believers of a satisfactory explanation. The present paper deals with this neglect. It asks the question, if God exists, how then can we understand God’s relationship to the world in a scientific age?

Anne L. C. Runehov: "Neuroscientific Research on the Self: A Case for Panentheism?"

from Metanexus Institute on Vimeo.

Learn More @ AnneRunehov.Com

Gebser, Origins and the Mutation of Consciousness

Awakening to Origin

by Jeremy Johnson

Not too many people are familiar with Gebser, including the integral folks who only receive his philosophy through Ken Wilber's plotted maps and points. I'd like to take a few minutes to share with you a few poetic insights Gebser was able to share through his life's work.

For anyone totally unfamiliar with him, Gebser was a prolific intellectual mystic. His writings give you a sense of urgency and awakening, as if every fiber of his being was compelled to put to paper something that only his soul had received by illumination.

I'm writing this blog not so much to make an intellectual case or argument for his ideas, but only to show you the theme he wished readers to consider. His life's work, Ever Present Origin, invites us into a new mode of perceiving the world. It takes the reader through hundreds of pieces of literature, artwork, and poetry throughout the ages, marking the transitions in thinking and relating to the world. We become immersed in a book about the evolution of consciousness, which can't easily be disconnected (if at all) from the evolution of culture.

Gebser was able to note that we have undergone at least 4 major mutations: archaic, magic, mythic, mental-rational. These categories, however, must be understood in context of their content. One cannot simply look at the list and understand it, they are best understood by reading the cultural artifacts themselves. Each of them pertain to how we relate to space and time.

Read More From: Single Eye Movement

Integral Development?

Integral People - Where?

by Giorgio Piacenza

So where are we really going, collectively speaking? I'm worried that Ken Wilber's expectation that an influential percentage of the population (at least in the U.S. and Europe) is becoming Integral Stage will not materialize in the world at large. After the green baby boomers mature (and some, expectedly, become first stage Integral) how will the rest of the population evolve? Will new cohorts like the boomers arise under the circumstances materializing today?

As said by Ken and other thinkers the boomers' children seem to be more narcissistic than their already narcissistic fathers. I also say (along with psychologist Sergio Sinay, author of “La Sociedad Que No Quiere Crecer” which translates as “The Society Which Doesn't Want to Grow”) that a great influential percentage of kids born in the 1980's and after (even as children of baby boomers) do not share the depth of ideals of their parents and crave short term entertainment. They are the children of postmodernity, of internet, of instant gratification. they are light, they are videocrats and I think that the life style this first stage of post modernity imparts tends to be developmentally confused (within the minds of newly developing individuals) with Red Level quick gratification and rebelliousness implicit or explicit values, therefore holding back further psychological development into the stage that psychologist Robert Kegan says people need to develop in order to operate in the demands of today's world.

Read More Here: Integral World

[Gleaned from Integral Options Cafe]

A (Partial) Defense of AQAL Contingency

A (Partial) Defense of AQAL Contingency
by Chris Dierkes

According to Wilber, when Western Europe entered into the rational-modern stage, what we term The Enlightenment (itself a contingent enterprise), The West (contingently) chose to deny Spirit as a truth procedure, thereby repressing Spirit and sending Spirit underground, only to have it re-surface in the truth procedure of Science, creating a spiritually-charged Science (now scientism as an ideology). According to Wilber, this modern spiritually- supercharged Science proceeded to take over (“colonize”) the realms of Arts and Morals, leaving what Wilber terms flatland (or really scientistic-land). The world became dominated by the ideology of the market (“The Science of Economics”).

Now that account undoubtedly has a heavy idealistic flair (again recalling idealism does not mean optimism here but causality via consciousness). As per Daniel Anderson's writings, one can reject idealism wholesale in favor of materialism. As such, one would therefore (like Daniel has) criticize Wilber's narrative philosophical reconstruction on historical materialist grounds against Wilber's more idealistic position. I'm not a historical materialist, but I appreciate the consistency of that criticism nonetheless.

In contrast I find the notion of Michael's critique of Wilber's view as having a teleological necessity to be ultimately unfair to Wilber's actual work, as shown above. Again one may not accept his presuppositions of levels, the quadrants (especially including consciousness as a fundamental dimension of existence), but contingency is radically built into his philosophy. Most especially so in his (so-called Wilber-5), post-metaphysical work.

Read More Here: Beams and Struts

The Power of Balance

The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society and Scientific Inquiry

By William R. Torbert

Since the dawn of the modern age, each intellectual and cultural arena has established its own criterion of success and has sought to maximize attainment of that ideal without reference to the other arenas of life. In politics, the ideal is power; in economics, utility; in art, beauty; in science, empirical truth. These ideals ignore one another, speak past one another, and sometimes clash. "Might makes right," "Profit maximization," "Art for art's sake," and "Knowledge for its own sake" or "pure science" are all slogans that are at once isolationist and imperialistic.

With such ideals, the different arenas of life may, at best, come into an accidental balance of power, or equilibrium, for a given person or culture at a given time or place. Such a balance of power is static, precarious, and necessarily temporary (if not altogether fictitious). As with the scales of justice, the slightest variation on any side can oscillate into radical imbalance.

By contrast, the ancients made the dynamic balance of the whole the ideal-whether the whole be the pantheon of gods, the whole person, or the city. Instead of a balance of power, these ancients sought the power of balance. Plato's Republic, for example, is about the search for the power of balance, both in the conduct of politics and in the education of leaders. Marguerite Yourcenar's Memoirs of Hadrian offers an intimate portrait of a Roman emperor seeking (and only occasionally discovering) the power of balance.

The power to create a whole without obliterating differences (whether that whole be a self, a family, a city, or a global community) and to balance wholes of different kinds is inherently integrative, mutual, inquiring, and ethical. The power by which parts seek to dominate other parts is inherently disintegrative, hierarchical, uninquiring, and corrupting.

Since Machiavelli and Hobbes and throughout the modem period, power has been treated, almost exclusively, as a necessary evil that restricts the freedom of those over whom it is exercised and that requires countervailing powers-a balance of powers-if it is not to become increasingly corrupt-perhaps absolutely evil-and squash all freedom.

By contrast, the theory of power presented in this book views such unilateral force as the lowest, least effective, and least legitimate form of power. Unilateral force is necessary in relation to those with whom we recognize no other type of power; and unilateral force can, if exercised with the artistry of the power of balance, set the stage for more effectual and more mutual power relations…

Read the More Here:

The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society and Scientific Inquiry (1991)

Integral Pluralism and Pattern Dynamics

Integral Pluralism and PatternDynamics™

By Tim Winton

I’ve just had an initial read of Sean Esbjörn-Hargens’s (2010) most recent article, “An Ontology of Climate Change”, due out in the next (Spring 2010) edition of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. I say initial read because I’m going to have to go over this more than a few times to take it all in. My blog post here is largely the process of unpacking Sean’s article, coming to terms with its implications for the field of Integral Theory and Praxis, and working through the relationship of my own work in Integral Theory and Integral Sustainability to the emergent space he has opened up.

There are some big theoretical moves enacted in this article- not the least of which is to bring the idea of “enactment” itself front and centre in integral discourse. To enact enactment, as it were. Sean also makes explicit, the hereto only weakly implied idea of Integral Ontological Pluralism (IOP) and connects it to the only slightly more strongly implied concept on Integral Epistemological Pluralism (IEP) through the only fully explicit pluralism currently widely articulated in Integral Theory, Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). This is the familiar—at least to Integral Ecology geeks like me—who (epistemology) is enacting, how (methodology) are they enacting, and what (ontology) are they enacting format from Sean and Michael Zimmerman’s (2009) recent book, “Integral Ecology”.

Sean introduces this triad of pluralisms as explicitly included in “Integral Pluralism”, and with that signifier brings forth a meta-perspective on Integral itself. This is big move number one: in fact this is huge and, I think, hugely exciting— not just for its chutzpah (and I mean that in a most integral sense of the word)—but also for its practical usefulness in meeting the challenges of a complex world. Sean illustrates this through a chart showing how Integral Pluralism allows us to identify the multiple (but overlapping) objects called “climate change”.

Ontological pluralism brings to awareness the fact that when we are talking about climate change, we are not all of us talking about the same thing, even if we are not entirely talking about different things. That’s the “overlapping” bit- not just one thing, but not so many or so completely unrelated to an underlying “reality” that they are completely fragmented. I should say here that Sean does not limit Integral Pluralism to the above-mentioned three pluralisms, and this opens up a host of other possibilities for inclusion within the purview of an Integral meta-perspective. For instance, by the end of the article Sean has added Integral Theoretical Pluralism to the mix.

Now, along with multiple perspectives and multiple methodologies we recognize multiple ontologies, allowing us to multiply Integral comprehensiveness and inclusion by some number of factors. And, through that increased comprehensiveness, enact a more sophisticated view and response to the challenges we face. Sean uses some illuminating graphics to demonstrate Modern, Postmodern and Integral approaches to ontology that I found particularly interesting- especially in their relationship to my own graphically intense Integral offering called PatternDynamics™. (See Appendix 1) Before we get to that though, we need to check out big move number two, Integral Enactment Theory.

Read More: Here

Blogging Integral Research

The Integral Research Group is an innovative and critically informed non-profit research and development venture. Our mission is to collect and conduct multi-methodological research on human development, social justice and planetary sustainability.

On our blog you will find leading-edge research, theory, multimedia resources and various other integrally-informed content and information.

The IRG is currently looking for people to join us in sharing important research and knowledge - by becoming an associate and begin blogging here or cross-posting from your own site. If you or someone you know is adept at gathering innovative and relevant research and information please contact us directly to become a regular contributor to this site. Thank you.

Eric O. Bronze
Executive Director
IRG - Integral Research Group

Organizational Transformation and Integral MetaTheory

On August 15th, 2009 integral theorist and organizational specialist Mark Edwards published his first major work outlining his own version of integral theory through Routledge Press :

Description from Routledge:

Organizational Transformation for Sustainability: An Integral Metatheory

By Mark Edwards

During the 21st century organizations will undergo a level of radical and global change that has rarely been seen before. This transformation will come as a result of the environmental, social and economic challenges that now confront organisations in all their activities. But are our understandings and theories of change up to the task of meeting these challenges? Will we be able to develop sustaining visions of how organizations might contribute to the long-term viability of our interdependent global communities? Organizational Transformation for Sustainability: An Integral Metatheory offers some innovative answers to the big questions involved in organizational sustainability and the radical changes that organizations will need to undergo as we move into the third millennium. This new approach comes from the emerging field of integral metatheory.

Edwards shows how a "Big Picture" view of organisational transformation can contribute to our understanding of, and search for, organisational sustainability. There are four key themes to the book: i) the need for integrative metatheories for organisational change; ii) the development of a general research method for building metatheory; iii) the description of an integral metatheory for organisational sustainability; and iv) the discussion of the implications of this metatheory for organisational change and social policy regarding sustainability. This book brings a unique and important orienting perspective to these issues.

Table of Contents:
Introduction - Towards an Integrative Pluralism

1: The Need for Metatheory in the Study of Organisational Transformation
2: Metatheoretical Domain and Definitions
3: The View from Here and Here and ...
4: Stories of Transformation
5: A General Method for Metatheory Building
6: A Multiparadigm Review and Analysis of Theories of Organisational Transformation
7: The Web of Relationships
8: An Integral Metatheory for Organisational Transformation
9: Implications and Evaluation
10: Metatheory and the Crisis

Available for Order: Here

See Also:

• The Depth of the Exteriors
• Integral Sociocultural Studies and Cultural Evolution
• Integral Theory into Integral Action
• A Brief History of Holons