Bonnitta Roy - AQAL 2210: A Tentative Cartology of the Future

Integral scholar (and co-editor of The Integral Review), Bonnitta Roy has posted a new article on her blog, An Integral Review of Books. This paper is, to my reading, an echo (expansion?) of the talk she gave at the 2010 Integral Theory Conference. Here is her thesis statement, sort of:

In this paper, I hypothesize three kinds of emergent, border-crossings correlating to new types of methodologies, new ways of cognitive reasoning, and new kinds of phenomenological experiences—respectively, emergent methodologies, onto-logics and post-metaphysical views. Each of these carry elements of what Gebser called Integral-A-persrpectival, which include

• New types of language (what Gebser termed systasis)
• New types of syntheses beyond dialectical thinking (what Gebser termed synairesis)
• Thinking in terms of generative process (Gebserian emphasis on dynamics)
• Processes that generate spatial and temporal frameworks (characteristically, what Gebser named the Diaphanon)
• Onto-genetic processes that contextualize time.
• The ontological entanglement of polarities.
• De-objectification of phenomena.
• The a-local subject simultaneously nowhere and everywhere.
• Resolution of opposites into unified field dynamics (Gebser’s priority of the whole.”
• Re-conceptualization of dualistic pairs into generative orders.
• New ontology of wholes and parts.
• New gestalt of figure and ground.

This is good stuff, and well-worth your time in reading it.

AQAL 2210: A TENTATIVE CARTOLOGY OF THE FUTURE

Posted on February 5, 2013

by bonnittaroy


Books discussed in this Section

~ Alexander, Christopher. (2001). The Phenomenon of Life (The Nature of Order Bk 1-4 ). CES Publishing, Berkeley, Ca.
~ Basseches, Michael. (1984). Dialectical Thinking and Adult Development. Ablex Publishing Corp. Norwood, New Jersey.
~ Brown, Jason (2002) The Self Embodying Mind. Barrytown,/Station Hill.
. . . (1991) Cognitive Microgenesis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
~ Cook-Greuter, Suzanne. Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace. Retrived from http://cook-greuter.com.
~ Gebser, Jean. (1985). The Ever Present Origin. Ohio University Press, Athens.
~ Gendlin, Eugene. (1997). A Process Model. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
. . . (1991). Thinking Beyond Patterns: Body, Language, and Situations. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
. . . What First Person and Third Person Processes Really Are. Retrieved from http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/pdf/gendlin_what_first_and_third_person_processes_really_are.pdf~ Goswami, Amit. (1993). The Self-Aware Universe. Penguin Putnam, New York.
~ Laszlo, Ervin. (2004). Science and the Akashic Field. Inner Traditions, Rochester, VT.
~ Roy, Bonnitta. (2006). A Process Model of Integral Theory. Integral-Review, http://integral-review.org~ Thackhoe, Sonam. (2007). The Two Truths Debate. Wisdom Publications, Boston.
~ Thompson, Evan. (2007). Mind in Life. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
~ Trungpa, Chogyam. (2004). The Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa. Shambhala, Boston.
~ Wilber, Ken. (2007). Integral Spirituality. Shambhala, Boston.
. . . (2000). The Collected Works of Ken Wilber. Shambhala, Boston.

AQAL 2210: A Tentative Cartology* of the Future: Or How do we Get from AQAL to A-perspectival?

* Note: Cartology: cartography of discourse & meaning derived from ‘carte’- map ;’ logos’- discourse

Abstract

As early as 1949 Jean Gebser (1985) predicted that Integral consciousness would have the capacity to render all the previous structures of cognition transparent. Today we have the AQAL map which identifies and contextualizes the eight indigenous or native perspectives of cognition. What is the possibility that there are emergent perspectives beyond the eight indigenous perspectives included in the AQAL framework? What would these potentially “super integrative” perspectives look like? Can we anticipate future potentials by identifying those who seem to be operating at or near the edges of these integrative perspectives today? In addition, Gebser predicted that Integral consciousness would have the capacity to make new kinds of statements, by engaging new types of thinking that would go beyond perspectival thinking into the realm of the A-perspectival. According to Gebser, the hallmarks of this new consciousness would include, in addition to transparency and integrity, dynamics of the whole, space and time freedom, and spirituality. So the question is “How do We Get from AQAL to A-perspectival- from the ability to contextualize perspectives across the boundaries that delimitate them, to a realm of unbounded wholeness? Writing in No Boundary, Ken Wilber (2000) tells us:

The ultimate metaphysical secret, if we dare state it so simply, is that there are no boundaries in the universe. Boundaries are illusions, products not of reality but of the way we map and edit reality. And while it is fine to map out the territory, it is fatal to confuse the two. (vol. 1 p. 462)

* * *

Integral theory is tricky. In many respects, it is a liberation theory – whether it addresses personal, spiritual or social concerns. At its best, integral theory enables us to dis-embedd from limited perspectival frameworks, and open up into more integrated views. However, at its worst, integral theory is absorbed as a metaphysical reality, as a fixed and static limitation on how we perceive, what we can perceive, and how reality arises. When Wilber writes that AQAL is a map of the prison, the integral community should immediately understand there is no prison except for the map. A-perspectivity is the unconditioned situation of living/being without the map. If we can learn to operate from that unconditioned place, then we can create new maps through which new worlds might arise with greater degrees of freedom and open-up our choice field. If we operate from that unconditioned place we will avoid the mistakes of misplaced concreteness that weld ideas into the bars and barriers of our self-imposed prisons. If we operate from that unconditioned place we will have transmuted the prisons of our selves into the playgrounds of spirit. We will, in other words, enter into the ever-present process of enacting our future.

Preface 

This article is a series of thought-explorations on the nature of the perspectival world and the possibility of shifting toward a-perspectivity. Our starting point is the world of AQAL – the realm of perspectives. Our journey is through three kinds of “shifts” from each of their perspectival constraints toward a more a-perspectival view. In this paper, I will use the term view to represent relative degrees of freedom away from perspectivity and toward the a-perspectival. View, in this sense, is not a static dimensional object, it is a dynamic relationship toward greater degrees of freedom from perspectivity, which is to say, toward a-perspectivity.

Read the whole, long and intriguing article.

Maretha Prinsloo - Consciousness Models in Action: Comparisons

The June issue of the Integral Leadership Review has an interesting article by Maretha Prinsloo on some selected theories of consciousness - most of which are AQAL approved. For example, the usual Wilber suspects are included: Graves, Loevinger, Kegan, Gebser, Piaget, and Kohlberg. However, she also includes Karl Pribram, a brilliant mind in consciousness research who has long been an outsider in (and outspoken critic of) the academic community; and David Hawkins, a very fringe author popular with alternative medicine practitioners.

Here is her author bio:

[Prinsloo] worked in the fields of clinical and counseling psychotherapy from 1984 -1988 after which she turned her attention to research on personality and cognitive assessment. Completing her doctorate in Cognitive Psychology in 1992 (titled: “A theoretical model and empirical technique for the study of problem solving processes”) she went on to found the company Magellan Consulting (pty) Ltd. which she has led since 1994. The business is currently serving approximately 1000 corporate clients and supports many independent consulting groups in the fields of people assessment and development. Magellan has expanded to the UK where it is registered as Cognadev UK Ltd and where it operates in association with a number of consulting groups that provide training, support as well as assessment and development products to clients globally.

From my perspective - and I read a LOT of material on consciousness, much of it outside of the AQAL approved canon - there is a definite bias toward more "New Age" models in this paper (Caroline Myss, Ekhart Tolle, Sri Atmananda, J.J. Hurtak), which are presented alongside the standard developmental models in AQAL theory from Gebser, Graves, Loevinger, Kegan, and Wilber.

But where are the scientific theorists who dismantle the whole notion of a self - Thomas Metzinger, Julian Baggini, Bruce Hood - or the more renegade developmentalists - Timothy Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, Merlin Donald - or the social constructionists - Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, Kenneth Gergen - and so many others, including William Irwin Thompson, an integral theorist who rejects Wilber?

Or what about consciousness models based in psychology, such as intersubjectivity theory (Robert Stolorow, Donna Orange, George Atwood, and others), or the developmental theorists such as Allan Schore or Daniel Stern? Where do the attachment models fit into these perspectives, as we know now that those early relational experiences shape our whole lives (failing intervention).

It's always problematic when we favor those models that support our pet theories and fail to address those that offer alternate views or refute our own theories directly. I have a sense that this has long been an issue in the integral community, and this paper reflects some of that problem.

Despite all these criticisms, which are less about the paper itself than the AQAL agenda in general, this is an interesting paper from a good writer.

Consciousness Models in Action: Comparisons

 Maretha Prinsloo

Maretha Prinsloo

Abstract

This paper discusses various theoretical models of the evolution of consciousness as well as critically evaluates and integrates the models into a single organising framework, which is then applied to leadership theory.

The construct of consciousness as described by the Spiral Dynamics (SD) model of Clare Graves is linked to the work of other developmental and consciousness theorists, namely Wilber, Gebser, Piaget, May, Kohlberg, Perry, Loevinger, Maslow and Kegan. The spiritual perspectives of Wilber, Myss, Tolle, Atmananda and Hurtak as well as the work of McTaggart, Pribram and Hawkins representing a physics perspective of consciousness development, are discussed. The spiritual and scientific perspectives are addressed to contextualise the consciousness models. In addition, current leadership theory which primarily seems to focus on individual, group and organisational behaviour, is reviewed from an integral perspective to emphasise the relevance of consciousness theory within the leadership domain.

Introduction

In this paper, the construct of ”levels of consciousness” as used in psychology and consciousness theory, is closely linked to those of worldviews, perceptual frameworks, organising systems, value orientations, “intelligences” or “memes”, in terms of which people understand and respond to their worlds. It reflects levels of awareness, or the inclusiveness, extensiveness, the depth and breadth by which incoming information is interpreted. These levels of consciousness largely determine intellectual, emotional and behavioural aspects of human functioning.

The various theoretical models on the evolution of consciousness reflect common themes, principles and structures. These models have emerged from different study fields including philosophy, physics, sociology, psychology, economics and theology, and address consciousness, cognitive, moral, educational, physiological and spiritual development.

All the models that are mentioned in this paper are not discussed in detail, and the focus is primarily on the contributions of Graves, Wilber, May and Myss. Gebser’s and Piaget’s work is merely addressed in support of Wilber’s AQAL model. The views of educationalists Perry and Kohlberg are briefly discussed under the heading of intellectual, moral and ethical development (section 2.4). Psychological perspectives such as Loevinger’s model of ego-states; Maslow’s need hierarchy; and Kegan’s equilibrium stages are mentioned but not discussed in any detail. These models are, however, included in the final integrated framework as proposed in this paper (section 3). Additional views from the spiritual and physical domains are referred to in support of the general themes that characterise speculations on consciousness. The role of consciousness theory in complementing current leadership models and practices is explored in terms of an integral perspective of leadership.

Go read the whole paper.
 

James Alexander Arnfinsen Interviews Bonnitta Roy - Episode 36: Dancing with Horses and Shadows

Excellent conversation - Bonnitta Roy is one of my favorite integralists and in this interview she gets to share a lot of her passions, from the wisdom of horses, to shadow work, to process philosophy. Lots to appreciate in this discussion.

The site is LeveVei, hosted by James Alexander Arnfinsen.

Episode 36: Dancing with Horses and Shadows

By James Alexander Arnfinsen On April 4, 2012

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 50:26 — 46.2MB)

In this episode I´m joined by process philosopher and Associate Editor at Integral Review Journal, Bonnitta Roy. She will be visiting Norway in June in relation to a 5-day seminar focusing on integrative and transformative principles to learning and leadership. Bonnitta explains how her experience working with horses inspire her passion for exploring the many levels of communication that human beings can engage in. For instance, how does the way we show up – energetically – play a part in the way we communicate with each other? We also dig into the idea of working with shadows. Shadows are aspects of our being that are so deep they are often hidden from our own awareness. She points to how our shadows are great deposits of creativity and energy if(!) we´re able to integrate this material into our conscious being.  Towards the end we touch upon one of Bonnitta´s new projects; the Magellan course – described as “a curriculum of studies across domains that engage an emergent type of post-rational reasoning.” Feel free to add comments below and check out the relevant links.

Episode links:

• 5-day seminar in Norway
• Bonnitta Roy
• Magellan Course
• A Process Model of Integral Theory, article from Integral Review