Four More Perspectives on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference, #itc2010

The new issue of the Integral Leadership Review is now available online. In addition to the always interesting collection of articles (this is a special issue on German Speaking Cultures, curated by Albert Klamt), there are four reviews of the 2010 Integral Theory Conference from members of the staff.

• Russ Volckmann, Integral Theory Conference
• Lynn Feldman, Integral Theory Conference
• Sean Wilkinson, Integral Theory Conference
• Jeannie Volckmann, Integral Theory Conference

Check them out - they each offer a different take on the experience.

Tags: Russ Volckmann, Lynn Feldman, Sean Wilkinson, Jeannie Volckmann, Integral Theory Conference, 2010, #itc2010, Integral, conferences, Integral Leadership Review

Frank Visser and Jeff Meyerhoff on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference, #itc2010

Frank Visser and Jeff Meyerhoff have both posted responses to their experiences at the 2010 Integral Theory Conference - they can be found at Integral World. I'm going to post a little taste of each one, then you can read the rest at Integral World.

For other conference reflections, you can search this blog or Twitter for the #itc2010 hash-tag.

A New Phase of Integral Theory?

Impressions of the 2nd Biannual Integral Theory Conference at JFK University, July 29 - August, 1 2010

Frank Visser

I attended the 2nd Biannual Integral Theory Conference at JFK University in Pleasant Hill, near San Francisco, with the intent to connect with the integral community as it had grown up around this academic milieu. I also wanted to transcend the polarized culture of Wilber/Integral versus his online critics, that had culminated/escalated in the infamous Wyatt Earp episode in the summer of 2006. And I looked forward to meeting in person some of the Integral World authors who had contributed essays to that website (Meyerhoff, DiPerna, Wallis, Augustine, Ross, Piacenza, Murray, Martin et al.), as well as make new integral contacts. Besides, I love to be in San Francisco. It's the epicenter of much of my interests, both in psychology/spirituality and in the Internet.

I was scheduled to give one presentation ("The 'Spirit of Evolution' Reconsidered", now available on Integral World—which received an honorary mention in the Constructive Criticism category) and participate in two panels (on "Key Criticisms of Wilber's Work: The Achilles Heel of Integral Theory" and "Is Integral a Mass Movement or an Elitist Pursuit?"). Further, I attended sessions on global warming (Zimmerman), ethics (Roger Walsh), spiritual development (Dustin DiPerna), progress in evolution (Steve McIntosh), states and stages (Terri O'Fallon) and the meta-theory panel (moderated by Tom Murray).

As mentioned, the polarization between the integral establishment and Integral World seemed to have run its course. At the time of Wyatt Earp, the academic initiatives headed by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens and Mark Forman were getting underway (leading to an online integral university program, an academic journal and the integral theory conferences). By actively inviting critical voices to these conferences, it's organizers intended to build bridges burnt in the past. I welcomed this gesture, and meeting these two guys in person only strengthened my confidence that much could be accomplished in the future.

In their opening speech they outlined a trajectory of integral discourse, that went beyond what they saw as the "Wilber-dominated" or "Wilber-centric" phase of 2000-2005 (as part of Wilber-V). Refering to the first Integral Theory Conference of 2008, they stressed that at that time the panel discussing the vexed question "Does Wilber Equal Integral?" unanimously answered this question with a resounding NO. Wilber and integral should be decoupled, was the general feeling at the time. My own feeling at that time was (perhaps surprisingly to many), that even if many past and present models and views could be called "integral", to me Ken Wilber was still the biggest star in the integral universe. To all practical intents and purposes, integral theory is very much Wilberian theory. So a focus on Ken Wilber would still be highly relevant to me. How would we have to characterize that focus?

Go read the whole paper.

* * * * *

Integral Theory Report

Jeff Meyerhoff

I attended the 2010 Integral Theory Conference, presented a paper and was a panelist on the “Key Criticisms of Wilber's Work” panel. Here are some off-the-cuff (hopefully not to “pop”) sociological observations of the proceedings and the integral community. The analysis is oriented toward the questions of where integralism, and specifically Wilberian integralism, finds itself and what the inclusion of previously excluded critics means.

Was the inclusion of critical voices a form of critical tokenism—a cosmetic gesture—or was it a real attempt to include strong criticism into the fold? Strong criticism is criticism of the kind integral theory would face if evaluated by academic scholars. My sense is that there is ambivalence about criticism; both a real desire for criticism and some tokenism are occurring, but the real desire for criticism is the stronger.

The real desire for criticism of Wilber's integral theory is evident in a number of ways: Sean Esbjorn-Hargens recent call for papers for a book of integral criticism; the openness to Frank Visser, other critics and I at the conference; Frank's presentation of his conclusive critique of Wilber's strange aversion to the reigning Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (certainly by Wilber's standards one of the dominant methodologies and theories of human knowledge); Frank being given an honorable mention at the awards and, what seemed to me, a sincere appreciation from Hargens; and, on the panel entitled “Is Integral a Mass Movement or Elitist Pursuit?,” Mark Forman's gritty level-headedness and desire to confront the realities of integral theory in facing the real world, in contrast to Marc Gafni's impressively articulate, passionate and rhetorically effective, but unconvincing advocacy of Wilberian integralism (the audience had to restrain itself from breaking out in applause after each of Gafni's inspirational mini-oratories).

All of these actions show a real desire for the critical inquiry that integral theory needs to have a chance to become a part of academia.

On the other hand—the other side of the ambivalence—my sense was there was a desire to mitigate the impact of the criticism by interpreting it curiously as an affirmation of Wilber's position. During the panel of critics of Wilber on which I participated I countered comments that seemed inaccurate whether they were critical or supportive of Wilber. But asserting that Wilber has a response to a criticism is not that same as saying that that response is the last word. It's simply to play the game of rational argumentation in the way it should be played, which is to try to formulate argument and counter-argument as strongly as possible. The goal is not to have your side win, the goal is to have the best argument prevail. During the awards ceremony Hargens, perhaps half-jokingly, exulted in the fact that even the critics of Wilber panel were supportive of Wilber and mentioned me by name. But that wasn't the case. This, similar comments, and the still yawning divide between integralworld.net criticism and the Wilberian integralists are evidence of the aversion to engaging strong criticism.

There's good reason to be concerned about strong criticism.

Read the whole article.

Tags: Frank Visser, Jeff Meyerhoff, 2010 Integral Theory Conference, #itc2010, Integral, conferences, perspectives, criticism, Integral World, Ken Wilber, Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, Mark Forman

Comments Reopened on the #ITC2010 Marc Gafni Post

I have reopened the comments on the pre-conference post I put up on Marc Gafni - knowing full well that I am making myself a target for his retribution (I have been informed of his tactics) and that I am winning no friends in the higher realms of integral land.

I will have more to post on this topic in the future - I am in communication with some people who have never been spoken to by the Integral elites who defend Marc and believe he is innocent. They have very different stories to tell.

For now, let's try to hold a wider perspective on all of this - it's about more than the sexual relationships he has had with students and coworkers.

Please consider this section from his evaluations (Kevin Udis, Ph.D. and Thomas Meehan, L.C.S.W., B.C.D.):

Marc’s review of his family, which includes two brothers and divorced parents, is laden with early tragedy and horrific abuse in his parents’ early life related to the Holocaust and numerous examples of a fractured family life, of sadistic abuse and emotional neglect. In many ways, the evaluators view Marc Gafni as an emotional survivor who immersed himself in the study of Judaism which would eventually be a central underpinning in his adult identity. There are some obvious repetitions in Marc’s adult life that reflect the lack of closeness and intimacy in his life as a child and young man and a propensity to find and engage conflict. Sadly, this frequently results in a familiar experience of loneliness and a lack of security and protection.

And this:

As he gains perspective on himself and these experiences, he displays an ability to see his responsibility in engaging people who may not have had his best interest in mind. These blind spots have admittedly existed since his adolescence when he prematurely emancipated from his family and attended Yeshiva. His increasing awareness of this unconscious repetition may very well assure him of growth and support from others in his future rather than a repetition of crises and harmful drama to him. During this assessment, Marc appeared more accepting that his adolescent-like style of opposing normal rules and perceived authority figures can take on a self-destructive path for him.

I have read a LOT of psych evaluations, and this one does not in any fit the standard format - it is what one writes when trying to reveal as little as possible about a client, a style used most often in legal proceedings, which would be my guess as to why these were written.

This one also was not done by an independent third party, but by therapists "recommended in this regard by his regular psychotherapist." Not objective, not valid.

The letter from Dr. Cindy Lou Golin, PhD is not a third-party, objective psychological review, but a letter of support that makes the same points Marc has himself made, as well as echoing the Kempton/Wilber letter.

The otherwise useless "evaluation" from Dr. Joseph H. Berke does contain at least important point:

It should also be noted that he has a major obstacle to overcome in his life, the fact that he is a second generation Holocaust survivor, the child of parents who were terribly traumatised by the Nazi genocide. These traumas tend to live in their offspring. Hopefully Mordechai will eventually open the lid of these experiences in himself and gain greater freedom, a deeper ‘tikkkun’ or repair of his self and his soul.

Again, this man was recommended by Marc's friends (Reb Zalman Schachter Shalomi in a communication with Jean Houston), neither of whom, to my knowledge, are practicing therapists themselves. No objectivity, no validity. The piece reads like fan mail.

Paul J. Goodberg, MA, wrote another fan letter, which to those not familiar with psych evals looks like it might actually mean something, but just read this passage:

Rabbi Gafni has been an unexpected delight. Not only is he a scholar, he is also a wit.

Most important, he is an intensely moral man!

Currently, he is continuing to struggle with intense feelings of self recrimination. As you might expect with a young, brilliant and charismatic rabbi, he has been guilty of excess hubris. He impulsively fell on his own sword when he issued a written apology for any hurt he might have caused even though he was the one, who, according to public reports, was being falsely accused. What hubris! What excess! This was a highly exaggerated attempt to cleanse and atone for the embarrassment he felt he had brought on his office, his teachings and his family.

By now, I am convinced that Rabbi Gafni never abusively hurt or exploited anyone.

He is completely reputable.

For those who do not know how psych evals work, they do not generally include statements about people he has never met, "What hubris! What excess!" - that alone discredits this "therapist."

There is a pattern emerging here (from what little actual information was gathered) of inter-generational trauma, extreme physical (emotional?) abuse by his parents, and a profound effort of spiritual bypass in an attempt to heal the wounding.

Here is Dr, Charles Tart on spiritual bypass - from a Q&A with students:

Student: How would somebody go about doing that? Using spirituality to bypass. I can’t even imagine having to do that.

CTT: One example that came up quite prominently during the hippie era – you folks are probably too young to remember hippies, but…

(Laughter)

CTT: Most of them, well I can’t say most, a lot of them lived by basically sponging off other people and didn’t feel in the least guilty about it because they were pursuing love and enlightenment. They weren’t going to get trapped in earning a living, which would support a corrupt society anyway. And hey, in one way that’s true, but it’s also a wonderful rationalization for just sponging off people instead of taking responsibility for yourself.

I can see Buddhism misapplied that way too. One way of looking at Buddhism is it’s the ultimate way of being cool, right? Nothing fazes me! Nobody can get to me! I don’t have any suffering! Well, that’s because you’ve stifled all the feelings that might arise within you. You’ve stifled them either by some kind of active suppression process or by a distraction process.

Let me elaborate that. I was thinking about that earlier today. If you’re in a situation that makes you unhappy and you want to be happy, what do you do? Well one thing you might do is to change the actual reality of the situation so it makes you happy. It’s too cold in the room. You turn the heater on. It gets warmer.

But a lot of times we’re in situations where we can’t really change the external situation. So the external situation is making us unhappy, it’s just going to go on for some long period of time. But we can do something about our reaction. Remember that equation, suffering equals pain multiplied by resistance? .

S = PxR

You can do something to reduce the suffering

One way is some sort of distraction technique. Here’s the pathological use of concentrative meditation. The situation bothers you. You concentrate so strongly on neutral sensations, like your breathing, you don’t notice the situation at all. So it doesn’t bother you.

Your life situation is poor, getting worse. You can’t get a job. You don’t have any friends. You don’t feel good about yourself. Concentrative meditation. Get into these abstracted states where you’re beyond any kind of suffering. Ahh!.

You come back out of a meditative state. All these things that make you suffer are still there. Damn! Pee quickly, have a bite to eat, and go back into meditation again. And maybe, if you’re lucky, you can spend your whole life meditating. Maybe you can join a monastery or a nunnery, or somebody else will take care of all the physical stuff and you get to spend all your time meditating; distracting yourself. So in that sense, meditation can be a distraction.

I think this is one of the reasons why the Buddha thought that concentrative meditation, for all that it was an incredible technique, wasn’t a complete technique for enlightenment. If you can distract yourself, you can simply take all your attention and put it somewhere else so there’s none left over to go into the suffering thing.

You need to have specific techniques for dealing with what bothers you, and this is where Western knowledge of psychopathology becomes valuable.

Remembering our arms and legs now. [for readers coming late to this series, the occasional reminder to students to remember their arms and legs is to remind them of the principle technique they have been taught to be more present, more here-and-now, and to practice that technique. Being more here and now helps keep these discussions more real, more concerned with reality, rather than just intellectual exercises]

All we know about classical defense mechanisms; repression, sublimation, rationalization, things like that; these are also ways of dealing with suffering. But again, they don’t solve the problems. They provide you with a temporary happiness, but they don’t solve the root problem, the core of the problem.

So this discussion started from pointing out that spiritual techniques like concentrative meditation can be an incredible accomplishment to get into these jhanas, concentrative states, to get into these incredibly abstracted states. But while you may rationalize that you’re working on your spiritual development, it may actually in fact be a kind of spiritual bypass, be a way of trying to not have to deal with the real life problems that you’re not very happy with.

Let's keep all of this in mind as we think about the Marc Gafni case.

Holding the broader context allows us to hold him in compassion even while we ask that he not be allowed to work directly with students.

* * * * *

Understanding some of Gafni's history (and this is just speculation based on the pseudo-psych evaluations posted at his own site) he was likely terribly abused as a child, reported left home in his early teens to join a Jewish spiritual community, and probably has never adequately dealt with his childhood pain explains a lot, but it does not justify it.

I'm guessing that this is the wounding I saw in his body when I saw him at the conference.

I don't think that Gafni is intentionally abusive or manipulative - he appears (again, this is my speculation based on his statements and those of others on his blog, among other sources) to be acting out childhood wounding, which likely manifests as a need to be loved and adored (and a profound inability to tolerate rejection), to feel in control (where he had no control over the abuse as a child), very low self-esteem (probably manifesting in narcissistic tendencies toward inflation/deflation of self-concept), and to have power over his fate (low internal locus of control, seeming to always be at the mercy of others, especially in terms of justice - the "fall" in Israel is only partly his fault, for trusting too much, it was more the women's shadow material). These are common patterns for abuse survivors.

* * * * *

As an aside, from everything I understand, Marc is a talented and charismatic teacher. Yet there is no clear reason why Integral Institute and the other integral organizations risk another of his "crash and burns" - by letting him work directly with women - that seem inevitable every five to ten years. He should be allowed to write, post blogs, do videos and audio teachings, but the risks of allowing him to work with students, especially females, is absurdly high.

Tags: ethics, gurus, Psychology, Marc Gafni, Paul J. Goodberg, Reb Zalman Schachter Shalomi, Jean Houston, Joseph H. Berke, Cindy Lou Golin, Kevin Udis, Thomas Meehan, psychological evaluations, abuse, intergenerational trauma, Holocaust Survivors, parents, #itc2010

Position Paper - Integral Ethics and Spiritual Teachers

John Wagnon is putting action where our words have been - at his instigation, we are forming an Integral Ethics Review Board (or something with a similar name) as a place to file ethics complaints to a non-affiliated group (i.e., no one owns us) of integral practitioners, and with the purpose of discussing these issues as a community. We have not worked out any of the details yet, since this is equivalent to the period when the sperm hits the egg and the new being begins to unfold - we are only now unfolding.

Those who know me and my blog may be tempted to think this is an effort to bring down one man, but that is not at all true - this is John's idea, not mine. Yet, my fear is that one man can still set back our efforts at growing the Integral community in big ways - and we want to prevent that by offering a way to deal with issues in "we space" before they get so far that serious damage can be done.

This idea for an ethics panel grew out of conversations at this last weekend's Integral Theory Conference. It's one thing to feel frustrated and angry - it's a whole other thing to take community action to fix the problems as best we can.

Below there are some ideas on what a code of ethics might look like. For now, here are some of John's thoughts (and a few of the more substantial comments in response):

John Wagnon Ethics working group coming. Who's in? First step - define the mission. Here's my first stab at it: We provide a forum and organization for the integral community to respond to ethical challenges in their midst. In short - we provide a community response divorced from overt structures of power & money.

We need some organizational meetings (brief and integral!) to set things up for success. The mission is *not*... for this working group to become another nexus of power, especially personal power. If it becomes too beholden to any individual's voice then its just another agentic power vehicle. It needs to be a vehicle for the power of community. Ethics are a LL affair after all. This doesn't mean there won't be leaders and powerful voices. But if it becomes just another power pole, then I'm out.

And we will steadfastly resist becoming a green consensus society if I have anything to do with it. If we practice consensus, it will be *hard consensus* - meaning there are things we can do to avoid getting stuck. See - I plan to be one of those powerful voices. And I recognize that this can't be the John Wagnon show.

Nomali Perera:
Here is a little ramble: Even before coming up with "the mission," what might be useful for anyone who wants to be a part of this--whatever "this" is wanting to be--might be to clarify for oneself 1) WHY we want to engage, 2) HOW we want t...o engage (depending on other commitments, how much time do i have, do i want to only support sincerely as a critical voice, do i just want to share my opinions, do i want a leadership/active role, etc), 3) WHAT do personally want or expect from the group and what can I honestly give/offer/contribute, 4) In relation to the "mission," at least as far as I understand for myself as it is now, what am I seeking and what are WE seeking (healing? "truth?" "who's truth?" truth for whom?, etc 5) How much of the past do we engage - or, using some reflections from the past, do we want to create something for the future and 6) What would i personally like to see - Code of Ethics? Forums? Website? Meetings? etc... OK, now I have to rush to our staff meeting. As I said, not much thought here...just a ramble.

Brian Howlett:
do people listen to organizations outside or "divorced from overt structures of power & money"

John Wagnon:

Well, right now no one is saying anything to listen to. Eventually there will be a power structure in the form of an integral practitioner professional association (one would hope) but it takes community effort to get those going. Right n...ow, it is simply ridiculous to expect individuals to go against their own economic, power, sexual, personal interest in the name of ethics if there is no community voice to exhort, encourage, and support them. The role of a community ethics group is as much to provide supportive energy to those leaders as it is to call out those leaders who fail in this regard. A cooperative ethical solution is always preferable to a confrontational one.

John Wagnon:
And you are right Brian - a community organization will have power - it will just be less obvious and overt. The power will derive from our connections with one another rather than our economic exchanges. The personal connection will also be more diffuse - so that power is yoked to broad will rather than individual relationship dynamics. No single friendship, romance, or business relationship will direct that communal power.

Corey W. DeVos:
I love it, and i really wish Integral Life had the right technology requirements to fully support this. But we will soon. Either way, i'd love to find a way for the Integral Ethics group and the larger Integral Life community to interface. Let me know how i can be of service.

This conversation is still evolving over at Facebook, so come share your ideas.

From my perspective, it might help to have a "code of ethics" of some kind - we need to define what an ethics violation looks like.

There is one model that was created earlier this year. In May 2010, the Integrales Forum, which, according to Terry Patten, "is the central coordinating group organized and coordinates among over two dozen local Integral study groups in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, wrote and translated a "Position Paper" that attempts to set forth some standards for evaluating the legitimacy and conduct of spiritual teachers."

What follows is the beginning of their working paper, which may be the foundation of our own working paper for a code of Integral Ethics.

Introduction
The Integral Forum has set itself the goal to discuss and apply the integral approach within the German speaking community as it has been developed by Ken Wilber and others. In doing so co-operations and partnerships have been developed and are being developed with organizations and individuals including spiritual teachers. These teachers are themselves subjects of public discussion that range from approval to very critical. Against this backdrop, the Integral Forum Board of Members has often been asked again and again and recently even more increasingly how we view our relationship to spiritual teachers and how we deal with the criticism of these teachers.

Based on this background and applying an integral approach we have prepared the two following articles.

Their purpose is . . .

• to clarify and outline our position on this subject
• to set a standard for our own (also spiritual) work
• to promote discussion and exchange with spiritual teachers
• to serve as a starting point for discussion with an interested public
• to help bridge the gap between humanistic disciplines, their applications and spirituality
• to be an example for an applied integral spirituality.

With the first article, Towards a School and Science of an Integral Evolutionary Spirituality, a philosophical framework is provided within which the discussion can take place. It particularly highlights theoretical questions in which different positions in theory can also have different ethical implications. For example a theoretical disregard of the Relative as related to the Absolute can practically lead to an ignorance and presumptuousness in a practice of the Absolute ignoring the practice towards humanity itself and finally result in spiritual arrogance. The second article, Enlightened Spirituality – A Checklist for Spiritual Teachers with Respect to Competence, Integrity, Responsibility and Transparency, then offers concrete criteria with which spiritual teachers but also their critics can be evaluated.

We would herewith like to make a contribution for discussions based on humanistic and scientific principles concerning just what (integral) spirituality (or evolutionary spirituality, or awakening, or ….) could be by including those that represent it and are involved in its practice in one form or another. This position paper is therefore to be understood as a first step in entering a dialog concerning the topic of a spiritual ethic with respect to teaching and practicing against the background of a culture in which spirituality does not yet have an enlightened and socially recognized tradition. Through our publications and events, our aim is to learn together and most of all in our dialog with spiritual teachers – also internationally - to assist in the emergence of an (in the western sense) “enlightened” spiritual culture. We have encountered great support through our numerous dialogues while preparing this position paper. We are well aware of the fact that the systematic as it is introduced in the second article can lead to irritations. Can we, or are we even allowed to approach, measure and evaluate such a topic as spirituality (and their representatives) based on the recommended (or even other) criteria? Our answer to this question is a definite "yes" and of course we apply these standards to ourselves first and foremost. In other words, if spirituality is to find its way into the community (including the scientific), then it (and its representatives) must submit to scientific discourse which primarily concerns humanistic disciplines. (In many discussions on this subject, the scientific approach has been equated with natural sciences and the encounter of science and spirituality limited to measuring brain waves of mediators and the comparison of quantum-physical descriptions with the Ground of All Being).

We are looking forward to this "integral" discourse.

Integral Forum Board, May 2010

I found this section very helpful: "A Checklist for Spiritual Teachers with Respect to Competence, Integrity, Responsibility and Transparency" (p. 7).

To get this discussion going, we would like to suggest a few criteria (the sequence is not relevant) from an integral standpoint that should apply to spiritual teachers. An important perspective is the teacher himself and how he perceives himself and his work, what is his self-image and self-assessment? Equally as important is the exterior perspective on the teacher and his work. How do others define what it is that constitutes a spiritual teacher and what he does?

1. Self-disclosure
a) phenomenological competence
b) psychological transparency
c) biographical transparency
d) philosophical-scientific competence and transparency (teaching)
e) own practice

2. External assessment
f) organizational transparency
g) what does the spiritual teacher do?
h) dialogical engagement
i) companions
j) public opinion

Explanation:

Refer to a:
Spirituality consists mainly of inner experiences that have a particular, namely "spiritual" character. Spiritual teachers should be able to provide sufficient and ongoing information concerning what they have experienced and realized during the course of their consciousness development. These accounts can then be compared to the great wealth of experiences found in the wisdom traditions and of other contemporaries. (A classical account of this type is the "The Interior Castle" by Saint Teresa ). In this way an important side-effect is that spirituality can be viewed as a phenomenological human discipline and possibly be better accepted in the circle of scientific academia.

Refer to b:
At the latest since Ken Wilber differentiated the path of enlightenment through state-stages and through structure-stages of development (with the possibility at each stage of dissociation and shadow formation), it has become clear that spiritual insights (state experiences) do not necessarily go hand-in-hand with psychological insights or a high stage in terms of structural development. The cases of teachers having a high spiritual development but a poorly developed character are legion. Therefore it is important that spiritual teachers are personally aware of who they are and how they work and are able to communicate this with an interested public. One possibility to do this is with a "psychograph" that can reveal the different competences and their development in cognitive, self, moral (values) lines for example based on a corresponding model and psychometric methods of developmental psychology. In addition, the spiritual teacher can provide information concerning shadow dynamics that he has discovered and worked on himself. Zen master Genpo Roshi also reports how the Big Mind Process helps in integrating the dual and nondual voices. Information from the teacher concerning topics such as power, misuse of power, teacher-student relations and authority can be just as revealing.

Refer to c:
The biographical background of a person does not necessarily determine his future but it can reveal certain factors. Even spiritually enlightened people remain individuals with a story. Where does the teacher come from, what has he experienced, who is important for him and what methods and theories have had an influence on him? It is to be recommended that a spiritual teacher make information available concerning his view towards his own development and biography. Of interest are difficult life phases and/or crises and how they were coped with. Just as interesting are insights and self reflections concerning mistakes, new understandings and learning processes.

Refer to d:
What does the teacher teach (even the comment "I have no teaching" is a teaching)? What is it based upon – which insights – and what type of ’hard’ science or humanistic disciplines and methods can support and confirm the teaching? Which methods and practices were used to gain these insights and how can they be tested? Is the teacher part of a lineage or tradition (such as Zen for example) and has he been authorized by his tradition or his own teachers to teach or is he self-named and self-authorized? Disclosing the teaching and its origin is an essential aspect when discerning the quality of a teacher. In this way the teaching can be compared with the teachings of other teachers and science – in a broad understanding of this term - in general.

Refer to e:
What does the teacher do for his own further development and in-depth development of consciousness? What information is available concerning his own practice (including the conviction: "My consciousness development is perfect and complete.")?

Refer to f:
Spiritual teachers often establish organizations or create communities with students they have taught. They are not responsible for everything that happens within these communities or what their individual students do, but looking at that is often a reflection on the teacher who is directing it.

Certain questions become very interesting within this context such as:

- How is the community organized? Is it transparent or obscure?
- What are the rules (rules of order) and procedures?
- How do you become a member and how do you leave?
- How do they handle money, how is the organization financed?
- How does the spiritual leader finance his livelihood?
- To what extent is the organization dependent on /independent of the spiritual teacher?
- How large is the organization?
- Is it possible and foreseen within the context of the organization that the spiritual teacher can be "surpassed" in his spiritual competence and what consequences would that have?
- Which great students did the teacher accompany in their growth and was he able to let them go on their own?

Refer to g:
What a spiritual teacher does and his behavior is the easiest to recognize and serves as an important source of information for those interested. How he responds to others is of particular interest. How does he deal with students, with former students, with sympathizers, with opponents and critics? How large is the sphere of influence of the teacher and who benefits from it? Do people come to harm? What do students and participants in seminars report of their experiences with the teacher? In a wider sense, all publications belong to that area of what a teacher does.

Refer to h:
Discussions or debates with those of different opinions also belong to dialogical engagement. Dialog partners that come into question are:

- other spiritual teachers
- students of the teacher
- the public in general including the media

Of particular importance is the dialog and interaction with critics.

Refer to i:
Close friends of the spiritual teacher are important sources for information as they know the teacher and accompanied him along his way. The spectrum ranges from enthusiastic students of many years to other spiritual teachers with whom the teacher is in dialog and cooperation and even to those who have left and have become critics.

Refer to j:
Public opinion and how this is presented in the media concerning a teacher is also an important source of information. Even here the spectrum ranges from positive and affirmative to negative and hostile. This contributes to the overall picture as well. (p. 7-10)

This is simply to generate some ideas - I will more than likely have some strong ideas on this - focused around power and its misuse, position and its misuse, and how to resolve these issues when the come up - and how to do this fierce, uncompromising compassion.

Tags: Integral, ethics, community, compassion, perspectives, Integral Ethics, Review Board, John Wagnon, Terry Patton, Integrales Forum, #itc2010, Integral Theory Conference, code of ethics, integral community

Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference: Part III: My Experience #itc2010

Some awesome integral women at the conference

This is the third installment in my series of reflections on this year's Integral Theory Conference. For this piece, I want to talk a little about my own experience of the conference as an attendee - which may sound a little as though I have consumed the Kool Aid, although if you have read my first two posts (Part I, Part II), you know that is not the case.

* * * * *

Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference: Part III: My Experience

I thought the conference was well-organized, well-run, and the facilities were excellent - all of which has a serious impact on how the attendees experience the event. The shuttles were consistent - which is good for me because I was always running a little later than I expected (one more line in a blog post, one more cup of coffee, etc.).

All of the presentations were well-done - although, to be fair, Sean and Mark assigned most of the events I attended and blogged, and they wanted to highlight some of the best work. Maybe some of the other sessions were less interesting or thought-provoking, but I didn't hear that from anyone. Speakers were professional, patient with questions, and more than willing to allow me to quote them in my session reviews (Michele Chase even gave me her powerpoint notes to use - which I will do in a future more extended review of her session).

Before and after the sessions/events, there was always some discussion of the previous session or the next session, or a new idea - that part was awesome. I live in an intellectually isolated part of the world as far as integral is concerned - so the only interaction I get is online. I enjoyed chatting with people (which isn't my nature - but everyone was kind and friendly). Having a sense of community around integral theory is very cool, and very new to me (and from what I here that was the main feel of the first conference in 2008).

There were so many people there who I have only known online - it was wonderful to meet all of these wonderful folks in person, even if it was only briefly. As an introvert - the experience was little overwhelming - 525 people is about 523 more than I am comfortable with, but people were respectful of not being overly friendly.

I didn't do the after hour socializing a whole lot - (1) partly because keeping up with blogging the events was very time-consuming (on an hourly wage basis, Sean and Mark got their money's worth); and (2) there was so much stimulation (remember that I'm introvert) that I needed more downtime to recharge.

* * *

The Integral Masculinity Panel

This was the first time I have ever spoken in front of integrally intelligent people about anything related to integral - so I was a little scared. But I figured there were some other cool sessions going on, so we might get 20 or 30 people and it would not big deal. Well shit, that was a mistake. With Bert Parlee and Diane Hamilton on the panel, as well as Pelle Billing who has many integral friends from the old Zaadz/Gaiam site, I should have been more prepared for the room to fill up to standing room only.

It turned out to be no big deal, which was aided by me being the first member of the panel to introduce myself. After that my customary stage fright was gone and I somehow felt very comfortable - hell, there were several times I seemed to want to talk, which is so unlike me.

I also think that it went better (for me) than I expected because I did some centered meditation and breathing before things got underway. That definitely helped to quiet the pterodactyls in my stomach.

Talking with Pelle on Sunday, we both agreed that the topic was too broad for any kind of focused discussion. We really didn't stay on topic (Farrell and Deida) very much, which is good because I don't see either of those men as integral in a "real world" sense. Farrell in particular seems to be embraced by the integral crowd - or at least by Ken Wilber - but he seems as a someone caught up in an oppositional stand and not really creating any new options for men (but that's probably just my bias).

Anyway, a more productive topic for the next conference will be more focused, for example: masculine gender development, masculinity in a post-postmodern world, parenting our sons with integral values, or any number of other ideas.

My experience of the panel was that we were a little timid, not wanting to step on any toes maybe . . . I don't know. To her credit, Diane brought up masculine shadow in the integral community before anyone else really did. But we really did not spend much time on it, and that would have been a great topic to explore.

In all fairness, this was the first discussion of integral masculinity at the conference, so we had to begin somewhere - and a tentative beginning is better than no beginning at all.

* * *

It's Perspectives, All the Way Up and All the Way Down

One of the very cool things about being surrounded by people with higher stage attainment (at least compared to Tucson) is that I felt my own perspective becoming more open and expansive. That was a very cool state experience to have for 4 days.

Hell, I even found myself thinking about how wounded and hurt Gafni must be - based on what I know of his actions and my "vibe" upon seeing him in person. Clearly, I don't know too much about his personal/private life, but I got a very physical sense of wounding when I saw him for the first time, and more so when I saw him at various other times. It helps temper my sense of him to have taken that perspective - although it does nothing to dissuade me from wanting a public accounting.

Another big thing for me was the sense I had from several speakers that chasing states and stages is not productive (read: harmful to self and development). I had a real sense that some people were advocating a development of depth and compassion wherever we are right now - that was a welcome message compared to what we are exposed to in some of the "official" integral dialogue (for example, Wilber & Cohen in EnlightenNext).

Finally, I was not aware of the degree to which my work/blog is known in the integral community - I have generally seen myself as just a small-time blogger with a few loyal readers. Knowing that this site is more widely known (and with the conference promotion, it has increased a bit over the weekend) challenges me to be more, for lack of a better word, responsible in how I approach issues. I want to be able to offer the most compassionate and open perspectives I can, from right where I am as human being in the moment.

Tags: observations, Integral, conferences, #itc2010, Reflections, 2010, Integral Theory Conference, Part III, My Experience, perspectives, masculinity panel, development, blogging, friends, integral community, compassion

Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference: Part II: The Community #itc2010

In the first part of this review of the conference, I looked more at the conference and the academics - this post is focused more specifically on the community itself. I want to be fair and not overly critical - on the other hand, many great ideas have failed as a result of the personalities in the inner circle - silence can be lethal.

*****

Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference: Part II: The Community

One HUGE concern I share with many other integral folks is the perceived unwillingness to examine ethical issues in "we space" - instead, these issues are kept quiet and act as a community shadow, in my opinion. This is always the big elephant in the room, and most of us know it. It was a frequent topic of discussion during the weekend.

Related to this, Zak Stein several times mentioned his discomfort with the "growth to goodness" assumption, which can just as easily become the "Darth Vader move." To assume that development will always make people kinder, more compassionate, and more ethical (or moral) is to assume that higher is always better (and - my worry - that shadow material somehow just magically disappears as someone gains altitude). Integral is not necessarily integrated.

I'll let Stein speak for himself:

Because these models and metrics can be used to hierarchically rank human capabilities and dispositions they are often taken to heart—they become enmeshed in how individuals regulate their self-esteem. Moreover, because of the erroneous belief that “higher is always better” (more on this below) those who take certain models to heart position themselves and their models “at the top.” (Integral Review, p. 362)

Or this, which essentially rejects the "growth to goodness" myth:

Harry Stack Sullivan (1964)—who Loevinger (1976) called the father of ego-development theory—understood the integrative powers of the self-system as ethically neutral, arguing against defining maturity in moral terms. The progenitors of our field did not assume that higher-level performances were necessarily more valuable; they set out to test this belief, combining empirical and philosophical analyses. They limited their normative claims about development to well-specified areas of human capability, clarifying the developmental logic of certain specific learning sequences. And when they used prescriptive, normative, or ethical language, they did not draw it directly from the empirical substance of their models. (Integral Review, p. 363-364)

Or as Katie Heikinnen paraphrases Stein and then amplifies:

One point made by Stein in his paper (this volume) is of such great importance that I wish to restate it here: “disqualifying” certain arguments as coming from a lower developmental position is both illogical—because this stance uses the “truth” of a theory to negate critiques of that supposed truth—and unethical—because this stance devalues and marginalizes voices of opposition. But I’d like to extend his point to note that while “developmental disqualification” is a rather egregious sin, using developmental theory to label colleagues, even if in good fun, is nearly as egregious. (Integral Review, p. 368)

The reality is that it is entirely possible to reach higher stages of development and not be moral or ethical - and if this shadow stuff is not healed, it's manifestation becomes more subtle and more covert with higher development - and tougher to root out due to its rhetorical sophistication.

*****

Part of what I and others have identified in the community is the elevationism that Roger Walsh identified in the ethics panel - or what my friend Brandy George identifies as "state chasing." This is another way of looking at the same issue as above - as seen from a different perspective (more subjective and less academic/objective)

Brandy posted an excellent and impassioned comment on a thread over at Facebook that she has graciously permitted me to reproduce here - it sums up a lot of what I and others feel:

My little "rant" . . . reflects the deep pain I feel over what I (and many others, as you know) have identified as the "integral shadow," referring to the "spiritual ambition" that manifests as quests for "2nd Tier Consciousness" or "vertical" structural development (which is really just the flip side of state chasing).

I don't really give a shit about people's theory qua theory. What I do care deeply about it what this theory means as dialectically reflecting and informing the way we relate to ourselves and other beings (and Being itself). In my opinion, one of the most pernicious results of not struggling with the relationship between states and stages (which can be more accurately understood as the "dia-logos" of ego and soul or ego and inner- and inter-Being) and coming to understand their interpenetration/co-potentiation is that we get fixated on what amounts to egoicly orchestrated projects in self-improvement that imperiously pass themselves off as spiritual practice often accompanied by an attitude of "more developed than thou." I realize this is over-stated and overly simplistic, but you get the gist. When vertical/structural "development" becomes the focus and aim, we cut ourselves off from the Development that is doing US, or the dignity and integrity of Being's Becoming that is INTRINSIC TO AND EQUALLY PRESENT IN ANY AND ALL "LEVELS" OF DEVELOPMENT OR ORDERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. In short, we lose our capacity to practice Ontological Intimacy and unwittingly thrust the Life with which we are entrusted into a Procrustean bed of "development." What I'm saying, simply put, is that development as is typically understood and practiced by students of AQAL translates either to not realizing our always already pregnant Condition or to unconsciously wanting a different baby/Being than the one we are pregnant with and having little idea of how to non-instrumentally "bear" and "midwife" Being's Becoming *in* both ourselves and others.

So I assert that “cutting edge Integral” consists largely of a “next level move” beyond the subject-object shift, wherein we increasingly realize ourselves as always already "object" to that "Subject," or those archetypal "Forces and Fates" which have their own "Developmental Designs" and which we can never strictly "have" or "leverage" as an object (and whether she knows it or not, this is the territory that O'Fallon has found her way into - BRAVO and GOD BLESS!). This is a shift from subject-object theory and vertical development as a covert control paradigm - as the instrumental wielding of an “object” with the aim of effectively appropriating its subjective autonomy to our own ends (it must be realized that all objects are also subjects, or more properly, objective-subjects). This is a shift from control to collaboration, from instrumentalism to participation, from egoic seizure to soulful servant-hood. This is about allowing what is eternally larger than ourselves, which will forever and always “have us” to have its own Life, its own Love, its own Autonomy, and its own Aims, even as we are called to creatively "co-Author" its expression and unfolding, even as we are trans-determinedly Authored.

Damn! I love her vision and her passion. She nailed it for me.

*****

As a result of all of this unresolved shadow stuff, we end up with integral's equivalent of a televangelist arguing that his unethical and inappropriate actions have been totally ethical (because he wrongly reasons that higher development means more ethical, more wise - so he couldn't possibly have done anything wrong) while those wounded by his actions (which do not break any legal codes, and yet are still problematic in a very serious way) are dismissed as liars or as acting out their own shadow stuff in claiming to be "victims" - what a convenient load of crap. Anyone who calls him (and his guardians) on it is misinformed, not developed enough, or has a vendetta.

Every movement is going to have leaders who abuse power and privilege, but the integral community seems to shelter a couple of these folks to some extent (or at least the ones who can generate income). And I believe that the "growth to goodness assumption" - and the higher is better assumption - and the "integral shadow" of "spiritual ambition" - and the quest for "2nd Tier Consciousness - are all a part of the problem.

On the ethics and development panel, Roger Walsh mentioned that his efforts at chasing higher stages of Buddhist consciousness many years back set his practice back at least two years - that is a direct though subtle warning to all of us about the risks in state/stage chasing.

In all fairness, it is a very small segment of the community where the real problems are going on, although it's at the highest levels (which is the problem many speakers talked around but never clearly stated this weekend).

ALL of the integral people I have met and know personally are wonderful people - this includes the people I interacted with who organized the conference.

And it was precisely these wonderful people (OK, not Mark F. and Sean) who were talking about my controversial pre-conference post and questioning the same issues I have been questioning over the last couple of years. I was constantly reminded this weekend that I am not alone in my concerns. Many people thanked me both online and in person for speaking out - and I will continue to do so.

My point is that as long as much of the long-time community knows there are these issues, there will be both distrust of the "leadership" among those who don't simply leave, and a continual loss of talent and energy as people who know about these issues - and the ways they have not been handled appropriately (despite claims to the contrary) - walk away.

I easily know as many people who used to be integral followers as I do people who are still involved. When I began blogging back in 2004 or so, there were a LOT of "integral" blogs - now I can count most of them on one hand. That's too bad.

More to come . . . .

Tags: #itc2010, ethics, Integral, community, Integral Theory Conference, 2010, elitism, development, Brandy George, subject-object, AQAL, 2nd Tier Consciousness, shadow, growth to goodness, Zak Stein, Katie Heikinnen, Integral Review, higher is better, integral televangelist, leadership

Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference: Part I: The Conference #itc2010

This is likely to be the first of several posts on my experience at the 2010 Integral Theory Conference this past weekend. I wrote this on the plane(s) as I came home today, so there is a little distance from the experience, but I'm sure that as there is more distance I may have different perspectives - so while some of this is objective 3rd person, much of it is also subjectively 1st person - and unapologetically so.

This is Part I - a look at the conference and the state of the theory. Part II will be a little more personal, both in my point of view and about the integral community in general.


Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference

Part of my role this year, in addition to blogging the main sessions Sean and Mark asked me to attend, was to offer an outsider's perspective - a somewhat critical eye from someone versed in integral but not part of the in-crowd (I got off to a quick start on that, which threatened, in the organizer's view, to dominate the space).

First and foremost, I want to thank Sean and Mark once again - they have been kind and generous in their support. I made their lives a little challenging before the conference even began.

My initial perception is that this was a very professionally run conference - and I have been to a lot of conferences. Aside from minor stuff that all conferences have to deal with, this was a very smoothly run event - Kudos to Mark and Sean and Liz and the rest of the rest of the team!

As far as content is concerned, it seems there is a very real split between more philosophical work, academic work, and material that appeals to the personal growth crowds. I'm not sure what the answer to this might be - you have to pay the bills and the less rigorously academic stuff probably brings the majority of non-presenter attendees.

My desire is to see integral grow into a much rigorous discipline - part of how that will happen is in bringing in presenters who have not hung out in Ken's loft, or who are not "sanctioned" by Ken or I-I. There are many other integrally-informed (even if they don't identify as integral) people who are doing good work (see below).

*****

It was great to see actual research presentations. While it's that we are researching our own community and it's values, practices, and understanding of the model, I'd prefer to see work being done in the real world - like that being done by Zak Stein and his group, or Will Varey in Australia, as just a couple of examples.

Doug Tataryn gave an interesting presentation, but his poster on his integrated therapy approach (Bio-Emotive Integral Therapy) is much more interesting and useful. True, it's not about the theory or model - better, it's implementing the model. It's time we stop preaching the integral gospel (mostly to the converted) and put it to work. For sure, it's good to keep refining the model, to explore ways of making it even more integral, as Terri O'Fallon has done, or Bonnitta Roy - and that can be big part of the conference- but just as much time can devoted to real world implementations that do not need to reference Ken or I-I or explain the quadrants, and so on.

I would to see someone like Dr. Dan Siegel, who has an essentially integral view of identity and development (even though he has probably never heard or read Wilber) speak at the conference. Or Michel Bauwens from the P2P Foundation perspective (although he knows Wilber and the model, he walked away from integral years ago). Or Jenny Wade, Michael Washburn, Jay Early, John Rowan - all psychology oriented people who know and use integral theory. The list could go - and maybe some of these folks have been invited, I don't know.

*****

Many former integral folks became frustrated or put-off by the insular nature of the elitist integral in-group. I was nearly part of this camp. I had stopped reading or blogging about integral for a while. But what me back was the usefulness of the model, despite issues I have with community.

I'm sure Sean and other integral leaders wish the Wyatt Earp thing would go away, but the reality is that it revealed some serious pathologies in the movement centered around Ken, especially considering so many other leaders approved his "test." That episode revealed some serious elitism, what Roger Walsh termed elevationism in yesterday's panel on ethics and development. Or take this observation from Katie Heikkinen, which she could have been directing at Ken's wild west episode:

One point made by Stein in his paper (this volume) is of such great importance that I wish to restate it here: “disqualifying” certain arguments as coming from a lower developmental position is both illogical—because this stance uses the “truth” of a theory to negate critiques of that supposed truth—and unethical—because this stance devalues and marginalizes voices of opposition. But I’d like to extend his point to note that while “developmental disqualification” is a rather egregious sin, using developmental theory to label colleagues, even if in good fun, is nearly as egregious. (Integral Review, 2009, p. 368)

It's been several years now, and that outburst was mentioned several times in presentations this weekend. That's how big an impact it had on the community - it's also when the integral blogs began to disappear.

Add to that history the disclosure by Susanne Cook-Greuter that she had to refuse Ken's request to use her ego stage measure on the I-I staff and a pattern seems to become visible. It's a pattern of higher is better, which as Zachary Stein pointed out this year, is not nessesarily a given - it's the "growth to goodness" assumption:

The claim that higher stages are better than lower ones is true in certain cases when “better” has been well specified. But it is not true across the board. It is possible to be extremely developed along some parameters (complexity, perspective taking) and yet be deficient along others (honesty, sense of justice). Moreover, in some domains it is probable that very highly developed capabilities will err as much if not more than less developed ones. (ITC, 2010, p. 3)

The paper is explicitly about this topic, so go read it. This one huge area of theoretical concern that I was please to see addressed directly or indirectly by several speakers this year - as well as in conversations with peers.

Another area I did not see in any of the sessions I attended is the over-emphasis on agentic forms of spirituality and growth, with little or no mention of intersubjective and communal forms of spirituality and growth. This reflects, I think, the overtly and overly masculine nature of the model and the leadership. Even Diane Hamilton, in the Integral Masculinity panel, noted the excessive "drive" and "agency" and "competitiveness" in male integral leaders - that sometime manifests in an unhealthy way.

Sean mentioned a desire to have a post-Wilber integral theory - I think this is crucial. While many people have come to the model because of Wilber, just as many have been put off by him (and other male integral leaders) and not become involved with the model. This is always the risk when a movement becomes identified with one person (or a small group of people - and right now, it's unclear who will succeed Wilber as the public face of integral - will it be Sean who is more academically oriented, or Marc who is more charismatic, or someone else?).

Right now, integral is still centered around a small and insular group - I get the impression that no one is considered "truly integral" unless approved by Ken. This will have to change - if not now, then when Ken passes.

Terri O'Fallon said her model is a community effort - on the other hand, AQAL is distinctly Ken's. This might be gender issue, but it's more likely that this is simply how Ken holds his place in the integral world. I like Terri's approach.

Stay tuned for Part II, where the real fun begins.

Tags: #itc2010, conferences, diversity, ethics, Integral, Reflections, 2010, Integral Theory Conference, Ken Wilber, Roger Walsh, Zak Stein, Will Varey, Doug Tataryn, Bio-Emotive Integral Therapy, Terri O'Fallon, Bonnitta Roy, Dan Siegel, Wyatt Earp, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Integral Institute, AQAL, Part I, The Conference, Jenny Wade, Michael Washburn, Jay Early, John Rowan, P2P, Michel Bauwens, Katie Heikkinen, growth to goodness

Panel: Development and Ethics: Katie Heikinnen, Zak Stein, Elliott Ingersoll, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Roger Walsh (Part 1) #itc2010

Panel: Development and Ethics: Katie Heikinnen, Zak Stein, Elliott Ingersoll, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Roger Walsh

This is part one of two - part two will be up tomorrow.

We started with a 10-minutes guided meditation led by Roger. He slowly and progressively moved us into a boundless state and had us find the questions that move us about this panel - these were mine: (1) How do we disconnect development scores from self-esteem/identity? (2) How do we care for the individual while applying these models and measures?

[PLEASE NOTE: These are not direct quotes - they are my best effort at recording and paraphrasing the conversation.]

Katie (the moderator) then had each panelist introduce themselves in terms of what they want to say about the up side of developmental & psychometric testing and models. I'm going to abbreviate these a bit, simply because I'm really tired and this was a bit less interesting than the rest of the conversation.

Elliott: First, do no harm. Great koan, and so hard to actually do it. People attach meaning to numbers and scores in the subjects - people's expectations are a challenge. Post-test debriefing is essential, and it doesn't often happen.

Susanne: I have no experience in ethics, so I am not sure why I am here. But I am a person who cares about other people, about scoring tests with fairness and compassion. I resist the impulse to transform everyone. And yet I am a developmental psychologist. This is also a business - how to maintain ethics in that marketplace. maybe staying small is the answer? Is that silly?

Zak: The state of the education in the US is the biggest ethics issue in human development. Models and metrics. Education is for profit. We test the hell out of people/kids and we measure little of any value. And the models are not useful. We need a bio-psycho-social model. Too many kids are taking drugs just to stay in school when we would be better off looking at the classroom culture, their environment.

Roger: (He kind of just listed a series a huge issues that concern him, so that is how I will present them.)

• I'm not an ethicist, not a developmentalist
• We need to consider the ethics of the test, and the validity, and also how the details are used
• We have to be careful - reading about higher meditation states derailed my practice for at least two years while I tried to reach those higher levels
• Also, we need to watch issues of specialness - seeing ourselves as a stage/color - comparing mind is a big trap, as well as elevationism
• Uncomfortable with efforts to map groups or cultures as any stage
• Trap of pigeon-holing - intolerance of ambiguity - results in stereotyping
• We must be values-aware since we can't be values-free

Katie began the panel discussion with a few guiding questions:

• Why do we do developmental assessments and hold developmental views?
• What are the dangers and risks?
• What does it do to our sense of self?
• What does it do to our sense of other?

Elliott:

• Why do we believe in a developmental perspective?
• Believe = fervently hope.
• Value comes in the discussion after the test as administered.
• Insight into their meaning-making - better relationship, better therapy experience.

Susanne:

• We need to not be sure . . .
  
• We need to wonder about how they (clients) explore their experience of self
• Feedback = test of the test, not the person
• Constant questioning is important
  
• Development is not stable and people are not static - even the theory is not static

Zak:

• We must leave space in the methodology of testing for its growth
• I believe in development because it's there - it's really happening - maybe I'm young enough to still believe - Evolution happens
• It's about trying to create conditions that generate autonomy in the deepest sense
• Standardized testing is designed to monitor return on investment, not in the best interest of the growth and education of children

Roger:

• Opening new possibilities
• I have a faith that truth will set us free - that truth is an on-going exploration - helping us recognize and invoke potentials within us

Katie:

• Pitfalls - money in the equation?

Elliott: (Jumping in, in response to some other side comment)

• Types . . . not a fan - none of them have proven reliable (Enneagram, Myers-Briggs)
• But as a metaphor of a style, you get a sense of the client, and where they are
• BUT, the risk is that clients will use the results of a test they request to beat themselves up (not advanced enough OR not living up to potential) - not useful in that sense
• Pop psych/self-help books (we buy other people's books to help ourselves?) - no feedback from the quizzes, no context - no debriefing, which is crucial
• These tests and models create an illusion of certainty where there is none - "Word Magic"

Susanne:

• Very few scorers due to the stringent requirements we hold for people
• Testing is never the first option for our coaches - maybe down the road, but only if indicated
• Must be cautious because testing can create harm, wounding
• Integral is guilty of of this in its arrogance - not valuing how hard it is to be an adult

Katie:

• Being a part of integral is a great gift, but it has also given me 50 more ways to be neurotic, at every level, in every state

Zak:

• Regarding the educational crisis - we are in over our heads
• Just choosing a cell phone plan, actually comparing and choosing one, is a Level 11 (in our model) task demand - life is so complex - we are often not competent to life's demands
• But this is now a knowledge based economy - huge demand for psychometrics means no standards, no limits on their use
• Testing is crucial in education - but we rank and sort, we regulate self-esteem based on test scores that do nothing to help kids learn - tests should be diagnostic, not prescriptive

Elliott:

• Based on some recent journal articles:
• Psychological testing is the most important contribution of behavior science to the culture
• No discussion of ethics

Katie:

• There's a sense of the test knowing us better than we do, better than we know ourselves

OK, then, this is the end of Part 1 - the next installment will feature the question & answer session.


Tags: Psychology, development, ethics, culture, Integral, Panel: Development and Ethics: Katie Heikinnen, Zak Stein, Elliott Ingersoll, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Roger Walsh, #itc2010, part 1, psychometrics, stereotypes, expectations, elevationism, education, standardized testing, developmental assessments, developmental models, return on investment, diagnostic, prescriptive, descriptive, post-test debriefing, word magic, educational crisis

Terri O'Fallon: Collapsing the Wilber-Combs Matrix: The Interpenetration of the State and Structure Stages #itc2010

Another very intriguing presentation to start the final day of the conference. I have read her papers in the past, and I am looking forward to this one - I hope I might get a better sense of her model in person.

Terri O’Fallon, Ph.D., Principal, Pacific Integral: Collapsing the Wilber Combs Matrix: The Interpenetration of the State and Structure Stages.

This presentation will cover theory, practical application and ongoing research related to the interpenetration of the structure stages and state stages depicted in the Wilber Combs Matrix. By administering the Cook-Greuter Sentence Completion Test to participants from second to sixth person perspectives and engaging in empirical behavioral observations for each level, theory arose, which prompted research in a continuous cycle of research, application and new theory. Current theory and research will be shared, which includes the concrete, subtle and causal floor/tiers of development and three levels of ego, among other levels of developmental iterating patterns. Attendee discussion is invited.

Terri O’Fallon teaches, consults, leads and conducts research on individual and collective transformative change. She is a director for Developmental Research Institute and Pacific Integral, and a certified scorer of the SCTi MAP, each of which supports her research on later levels of adult development and group developmental transformation.

For those who may not be familiar, this is the Wilber-Combs Matrix:


One of the things I like about O'Fallon's model is that it . . .

describes a consciousness roaming space for more than one person, representing how the structure stages and the state stages might interact in a person, and how people, with the different shapes of their consciousness, might share a particular consciousness space related to the intersection of the two. This view of the WC matrix brought together the “I” and the “we” (later adding the “it/s”). The later version turned into a dynamic quadratic form of the WC matrix (O’Fallon, in press b)

This is important to me because I tend more toward an intersubjective experience of higher states, rather than an individual experience.

[Post-session comments]

Phenomenal presentation. I like that she willingly admits her map is a work in progress, that she is very open to criticism, and that it is a collective creation. Very humble and non-defensive about her work.

Her presentation began with a creation myth from Aurobindo - which is also how she begins the paper - moving from the kingdom of matter, to the kingdom of plants, to the kingdom of animals, and then to the kingdom of mind. So what comes next? She says Aurobindo believes it will be as momentous as the leap from matter to plants, or plants to animals.

Her paper and presentation are an exploration of the kingdom of mind.

A quick history of states and stages:

I - 1995, SES, states stacked on top of stages
II - Wilber-Combs Matrix
III - O'Fallon's room to roam

So then we have the following lists:

States:
Gross, Subtle, Causal, Witness, Nondual

Stages (here I think we have a mix of Cook-Greuter and Torbert, 1995 which become Terri's own model):
Opportunist, Diplomat, Expert, Achiever, Individualist, Strategist, Magician, Ironist

Terri explains these stages in a paper at the Integral Leadership Review, for those who are interested: Leadership and the Interpenetration of Structure and State Stages:A Subjective Exposé.

This stage system is based on action logics, as outlined by Torbert - however, the names are different than they were in Cook-Greuter's "Ego Development: Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace" (2005). Here is how that chart looked:

OK, then. She begins with an inquiry:

I wonder what I will find if I look closely at the patterns that seem evident in the structure stages and in the state stages?

Looking the patterns and the life experiences of her clients gave rise to the model - she repeatedly mentioned that it was the people she worked with, the scoring she was doing, that gave her this model (along with Susanne, Ken, and Allan).

Iterating Tier Patterns: Finer Distinctions in Development

The following are some of the patterns she outlined - the presentation is mostly the same as the paper, so I am not presenting too much that you cannot read in her paper (which is linked to above - and she is open to comments and feedback, her email is in the paper):

Person Perspective Patterns

1. The first person perspective is a focus on the self.
2. The second person perspective is a focus on self and other.
3. The third person perspective is a focus on an observer who can focus on another self and other(s).
4. The fourth person perspective is a focus on an observer, observing another observer, observing another self and other(s).
5. The fifth person perspective is seeing the previous pattern of observing observers observing; at the fifth person perspective, the observing can cycle from the 5th to the nth positions. (Cook Greuter, 2002)
6 . The sixth person perspective, seeing the nth perspectives, begins to step outside of those nth perspectives and begins to take a perspective using patterns of observation and perspective taking through tiers.

Her model actually goes up to 8th person perspective (7th and 8th are nondual). There are also the following patterns:

• Time and space
• Qualities (types?)
• Differentiation/integration
• Prioritizing pattern
• Horizontal hall of mirrors
• Polar opposite tier patterns
• Gross, subtle, causal floor
• Gross, subtle, causal ego

Now it gets a little confusing - hang in there - it'll make more sense when you see it visually,

1-1-1-1 Patterns: Person patterns

Time: concrete (now) self, subtle (generational) self, causal (one-time) self, nondual/eternity
Space: self - other - collective - many- infinity
Qualities ("now" qualities):

• self/other (red)
• concrete (amber)
• formal (orange)
• contexts (green)
• constructs (teal)
• polar opposites unite (indigo)

(Not sure what happened to turquoise in this model, and then violet, ultraviolet, and clear light - I guess those are Wilberian and not necessarily a part of Cook-Greuter or O'Fallon.)

Next up are the 1-2, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2 Patterns

Differentiation/integration: essentially transcend and include (my words)
Prioritizing: Early, hard to prioritize perspectives; Late, easier to prioritize perspectives -
Horizontal Hall of Mirrors: 2nd stage of a person's perspective, can become hypnotized by and addicted to what they have integrated (examples: 3rd order, analysis paralysis; 4th order, constructs within constructs)

1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3 Patterns

Gross, subtle, causal - floors of experience (tiers) arise at the first level of a new polar pair

• 1st - self/other - concrete/collective (concrete floor)
• 2nd - interior/exterior - (subtle floor)
• 3rd - transcendent/immanent (causal floor)

The following comes from the paper because she explains this process of moving through the sub-stages of each floor/tier much better than I can (page 14 of the pdf):

• 1st tier - progresses from (a) seeing only one side of the pole to (b) making choices between the poles to (c) choosing both (both/and) to (d) integrating the concrete self/other poles into the exterior self, and preparing for another pole to arise to balance out the exterior (with interior), which becomes the overriding polar focus for the next four levels
• 2nd tier - Second tier, poles of subtle/concrete (interior/exterior) polar opposites arise: This progresses along the pattern until they reach the Strategist level, at which time they integrate the interior and exterior into immanence (body/mind). Immanence becomes a new end of the polar pair immanence/transcendence, which is the overriding polar pattern for the third tier.
• 3rd tier - Third tier, poles of immanence/transcendence arise: This progresses along the four-step pattern until they reach the Illumined level, at which time, transcendence and immanence are integrated.

She asks, rhetorically, is there a subtle shadow? She suspects there might be. (I'd say there is, with little doubt in my mind.)

Finally, there are the 1-2-3-4 Patterns: Polar Opposite Patterns

• See one side of a pole (such as at the red or amber stages)
• See either/or
• See both/and
• Poles unified and become one side of the next polar opposite pair

senses/movement arise and unify into the exterior - interior arises to balance exterior

exterior/(subtle) interior - arises (right, left quadrants) and after four stages unify into immanence (somatic/body-mind/spirit)

immanence/transcendence - arises and after four stages unifies into non-dual

This is my feeble attempt at reproducing one of Terri's images that is not in the paper.

Iterating the Quadrants - Growing Up is Waking Up

This sort of gives a visual image for some of the above material - it's not in the paper as an image, but it helps to see it. But wait . . . there's more . . . I'm going to try to reproduce a couple of more charts, as well.

Awareness Patterns:

• Gradients of awareness:

Time (none, reflective, in the moment, state)


Space (extending in --> out)

• Objects of awareness: part of structure-stages, but also part of state-stages

The next chart looks at the Dark Night of the Soul through her model - this is interesting to me - I've not come across anything like this in discussion of the Dark Night.

Alright then, all of that leads to the final oh-so-cool image from Terri's paper - The Kingdom of Mind. [This image is in the paper, for those who want to really understand it, which requires actually being able to read the chart.]

Tiers/Floors (she has FOUR tiers):

• Concrete: impulsive, opportunist, diplomat
• Subtle: expert, achiever, individualist, strategist
• Causal: construct-aware, catalyst, unitive, illuminative
• Nondual: metamind, overmind, supermind

Interpenetration of State-Stages and Structure-Stages

But what about . . . . ?

• Structure stages come from a 3rd person structural perspective and states come from a 1st person subjective perspective . . .
• Aren't there categories and experiences in both states and structures?

[ME: This is an UL model, but I am wondering if we can do this or something similar in each of the other quadrants . . . a kind of AQAL 2.0?]

• There may be surprises, both for us as human beings . . . .
• and maybe an intelligent chimp!

[ME: Where do types fit in here? How would someone who relates most clearly with life in a somatic way fit into the model? Or an intellectual?]

Allan Combs - He sees a "bandwidth issue" with this model, as much as he admires the work and is intrigued by it. States are discrete in his understanding. He's uncomfortable with putting states onto stages.

Final thought from Terri - This is NOT a theory of everything, it's one perspective on the kingdom of mind.

Tags: Terri O'Fallon, Collapsing the Wilber-Combs Matrix, Interpenetration, State stages, Structure Stages, Psychology, Philosophy, Spirituality, Integral, #itc2010, Integral Theory Conference, we space, consciousness, mind, application, research, Pacific Integral, development, Ken Wilber, Allan Combs, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Kingdom on mind, dark night, awareness patterns