Brian McLaren — The Equation of Change (On Being)

An interesting discussion from Krista Tippett's On Being (NPR) on how we can regain our faith in a postmodern, post-traditional world. Brain McLaren is a progressive voice in the new(ish) "Emerging Christianity" movement.

Brian McLaren — The Equation of Change

March 13, 2014

How can people rediscover faith as a series of stories and encounters rather than being reduced to a system of abstractions and beliefs? An influential voice in the worlds of progressive Evangelicalism and “emerging” Christianity, Brian McLaren envisions a community where diversity no longer means division. A provocative conversation on the meaning and future of Church in a 21st-century world.

Listen

Radio Show/Podcast - (mp3, 51:00)
Unedited Interview, Brian McLaren - (mp3, 1:19:02)

Learn

• Transcript

Voices on the Radio

Brian McLaren is a leading Evangelical pastor and author of several books including A Generous Orthodoxy, Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?, and the forthcoming We Make the Road by Walking.

Production Credits

Host/Executive Producer: Krista Tippett

Head of Content: Trent Gilliss

Technical Director: Chris Heagle

Senior Producer: Lily Percy

Associate Producer: Mariah Helgeson

Pertinent Posts from the On Being Blog

Nadia Bolz-Weber Talks Tattoos, Resurrection, and God's Disruption (video)
Every so often, Krista's interviews should be seen as much as heard. Her conversation with Nadia Bolz-Weber is one of these essential moments.



Bluegrass Unites: A Musical Collaboration Between an Orthodox Jew and Evangelical Christian
A joyful story on how bluegrass music brought together a country music star and klezmer virtuoso to record the classic 18th-century hymn, "The Lord Will Provide."



Millennials, DJs of Their Own Spiritualities
Krista sits down with The Takeaway to explain the impulses behind the Pew polls on the religiously unaffiliated Millennials. She believes that this growing number of unaffiliated young people are a source of renewal of religion in the U.S.



Rooting the Poetry of Resurrection in the Garden of Eden
In the beginning was poetry. The book of Genesis starts with a liturgical poem.

The creation of the cosmos can only be communicated, the ancients knew, through language that speaks to the imagination — that unity of intellect and emotion, which was for the biblical writers the restless human heart. Images and metaphors are primary speech, conveyers of truth — durable yet pliable, precise yet ever expansive in the vision of the world (and ourselves) they set before us.



Transforming the "Other" to "Us": A Call for Faith Communities to Practice Mutuality
How do we fulfill the dream that was bequeathed to us? By practicing the joyful art of doing life together across racial categories without fear.

Carl Zimmer - The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity

From the current issue of Scientific American, science writer Carl Zimmer offers an extensive overview of the complexity of evolutionary processes - and the tendency for complexity and diversity to increase in evolutionary systems.

A group of Canadian biologists, including Michael Gray of Dalhousie University in Halifax, proposed that some mutations might give rise to complex structures "without going through a series of intermediates that are each selected for their help in adapting an organism to its environment. They dubbed this process constructive neutral evolution."

Two of the authors featured in this piece, Daniel W. McShea and Robert N. Brandon (authors of Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems, 2010), have proposed (in that book) something called the zero force evolutionary law (ZFEL).

ZFEL says (roughly) that when there are no evolutionary forces acting on a population, the population’s complexity (i.e., how diverse its member organisms are) will increase. 

There is some really interesting research presented here - and Zimmer is one of the best science writers around.

The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity

Scientists are exploring how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection

By Carl Zimmer | Tuesday, July 16, 2013

LAB-RAISED fruit flies are more complex than wild ones because their sheltered environment allows even disadvantageous mutations to spread. This artist's conception contrasts typical wild fly anatomy (left) with representative mutations that arise in lab flies (right). Image: Cherie Sinnen

Charles Darwin was not yet 30 when he got the basic idea for the theory of evolution. But it wasn't until he turned 50 that he presented his argument to the world. He spent those two decades methodically compiling evidence for his theory and coming up with responses to every skeptical counter-argument he could think of. And the counterargument he anticipated most of all was that the gradual evolutionary process he envisioned could not produce certain complex structures.

Consider the human eye. It is made up of many parts—a retina, a lens, muscles, jelly, and so on—all of which must interact for sight to occur. Damage one part—detach the retina, for instance—and blindness can follow. In fact, the eye functions only if the parts are of the right size and shape to work with one another. If Darwin was right, then the complex eye had evolved from simple precursors. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote that this idea “seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

But Darwin could nonetheless see a path to the evolution of complexity. In each generation, individuals varied in their traits. Some variations increased their survival and allowed them to have more offspring. Over generations those advantageous variations would become more common—would, in a word, be “selected.” As new variations emerged and spread, they could gradually tinker with anatomy, producing complex structures.

The human eye, Darwin argued, could have evolved from a simple light-catching patch of tissue of the kind that animals such as flatworms grow today. Natural selection could have turned the patch into a cup that could detect the direction of the light. Then, some added feature would work with the cup to further improve vision, better adapting an organism to its surroundings, and so this intermediate precursor of an eye would be passed down to future generations. And, step-by-step, natural selection could drive this transformation to increased complexity because each intermediate form would provide an advantage over what came before.

Darwin's musings on the origin of complexity have found support in modern biology. Today biologists can probe the eye and other organs in detail at the molecular level, where they find immensely complex proteins joining together to make structures that bear a striking resemblance to portals, conveyor belts and motors. Such intricate systems of proteins can evolve from simpler ones, with natural selection favoring the intermediates along the way.

But recently some scientists and philosophers have suggested that complexity can arise through other routes. Some argue that life has a built-in tendency to become more complex over time. Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.

A Sum of Varied Parts

Biologists and philosophers have pondered the evolution of complexity for decades, but according to Daniel W. McShea, a paleobiologist at Duke University, they have been hobbled by vague definitions. “It's not just that they don't know how to put a number on it. They don't know what they mean by the word,” McShea says.

McShea has been contemplating this question for years, working closely with Robert N. Brandon, also at Duke. McShea and Brandon suggest that we look not only at the sheer number of parts making up living things but at the types of parts. Our bodies are made of 10 trillion cells. If they were all of one type, we would be featureless heaps of protoplasm. Instead we have muscle cells, red blood cells, skin cells, and so on. Even a single organ can have many different cell types. The retina, for example, has about 60 different kinds of neurons, each with a distinct task. By this measure, we can say that we humans are, indeed, more complex than an animal such as a sponge, which has perhaps only six cell types.

One advantage of this definition is that you can measure complexity in many ways. Our skeletons have different types of bones, for example, each with a distinctive shape. Even the spine is made up of different types of parts, from the vertebrae in the neck that hold up our head to the ones that support our rib cage.

In their 2010 book Biology's First Law, McShea and Brandon outlined a way that complexity defined in this way could arise. They argued that a bunch of parts that start out more or less the same should differentiate over time. Whenever organisms reproduce, one or more of their genes may mutate. And sometimes these mutations give rise to more types of parts. Once an organism has more parts, those units have an opportunity to become different. After a gene is accidentally copied, the duplicate may pick up mutations that the original does not share. Thus, if you start with a set of identical parts, according to McShea and Brandon, they will tend to become increasingly different from one another. In other words, the organism's complexity will increase.

As complexity arises, it may help an organism survive better or have more offspring. If so, it will be favored by natural selection and spread through the population. Mammals, for example, smell by binding odor molecules to receptors on nerve endings in their nose. These receptor genes have repeatedly duplicated over millions of years. The new copies mutate, allowing mammals to smell a wider range of aromas. Animals that rely heavily on their nose, such as mice and dogs, have more than 1,000 of these receptor genes. On the other hand, complexity can be a burden. Mutations can change the shape of a neck vertebra, for instance, making it hard for the head to turn. Natural selection will keep these mutations from spreading through populations. That is, organisms born with those traits will tend to die before reproducing, thus taking the deleterious traits out of circulation when they go. In these cases, natural selection works against complexity.

Unlike standard evolutionary theory, McShea and Brandon see complexity increasing even in the absence of natural selection. This statement is, they maintain, a fundamental law of biology—perhaps its only one. They have dubbed it the zero-force evolutionary law.

The Fruit-Fly Test

Recently McShea and Leonore Fleming, a graduate student at Duke, put the zero-force evolutionary law to the test. The subjects wereDrosophila flies. For more than a century scientists have reared stocks of the flies to use in experiments. In their laboratory homes, the flies have led a pampered life, provided with a constant supply of food and a steady, warm climate. Their wild relatives, meanwhile, have to contend with starvation, predators, cold and heat. Natural selection is strong among the wild flies, eliminating mutations that make flies unable to cope with their many challenges. In the sheltered environment of the labs, in contrast, natural selection is feeble.

The zero-force evolutionary law makes a clear prediction: over the past century the lab flies should have been less subject to the elimination of disadvantageous mutations and thus should have become more complex than the wild ones.

Fleming and McShea examined the scientific literature for 916 laboratory lines of flies. They made many different measures of complexity in each population. In the journal Evolution & Development, they recently reported that the lab flies were indeed more complex than wild ones. Some of the insects had irregular legs. Others acquired complicated patterns of colors on their wings. The segments of their antennae took on different shapes. Freed from natural selection, flies have reveled in complexity, just as the law predicts.

Although some biologists have endorsed the zero-force evolutionary law, Douglas Erwin, a leading paleontologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, thinks it has some serious flaws. “One of its basic assumptions fails,” he argues. According to the law, complexity may increase in the absence of selection. But that would be true only if organisms could actually exist beyond the influence of selection. In the real world, even when they are pampered by the most doting of scientists, Erwin contends, selection still exerts a force. For an animal such as a fly to develop properly, hundreds of genes have to interact in an elaborate choreography, turning one cell into many, giving rise to different organs, and so on. Mutations may disrupt that choreography, preventing the flies from becoming viable adults.

An organism can exist without external selection—without the environment determining who wins and loses in the evolutionary race—but it will still be subject to internal selection, which takes place within organisms. In their new study, McShea and Fleming do not provide evidence for the zero-force evolutionary law, according to Erwin, “because they only consider adult variants.” The researchers did not look at the mutants that died from developmental disorders before reaching maturity, despite being cared for by scientists.

Another objection Erwin and other critics have raised is that McShea and Brandon's version of complexity does not jibe with how most people define the term. After all, an eye does not just have many different parts. Those parts also carry out a task together, and each one has a particular job to do. But McShea and Brandon argue that the kind of complexity that they are examining could lead to complexity of other sorts. “The kind of complexity that we're seeing in this Drosophila population is the foundation for really interesting stuff that selection could get hold of” to build complex structures that function to aid survival, McShea says.

Molecular Complexity

As a paleobiologist, McShea is accustomed to thinking about the kind of complexity he can see in fossils—bones fitting together into a skeleton, for example. But in recent years a number of molecular biologists have independently begun to think much as he does about how complexity emerges.

In the 1990s a group of Canadian biologists started to ponder the fact that mutations often have no effect on an organism at all. These mutations are, in the jargon of evolutionary biology, neutral. The scientists, including Michael Gray of Dalhousie University in Halifax, proposed that the mutations could give rise to complex structures without going through a series of intermediates that are each selected for their help in adapting an organism to its environment. They dubbed this process “constructive neutral evolution.”

Gray has been encouraged by some recent studies that provide compelling evidence for constructive neutral evolution. One of the leaders in this research is Joe Thornton of the University of Oregon. He and his colleagues have found what appears to be an example in the cells of fungi. In fungi, such as a portobello mushroom, cells have to move atoms from one place to another to stay alive. One of the ways they do so is with molecular pumps called vacuolar ATPase complexes. A spinning ring of proteins shuttles atoms from one side of a membrane in the fungus to another. This ring is clearly a complex structure. It contains six protein molecules. Four of the molecules consist of the protein known as Vma3. The fifth is Vma11 and the sixth Vma16. All three types of protein are essential for the ring to spin.

To find out how this complex structure evolved, Thornton and his colleagues compared the proteins with related versions in other organisms, such as animals. (Fungi and animals share a common ancestor that lived around a billion years ago.)

In animals, the vacuolar ATPase complexes also have spinning rings made of six proteins. But those rings are different in one crucial way: instead of having three types of proteins in their rings, they have only two. Each animal ring is made up of five copies of Vma3 and one of Vma16. They have no Vma11. By McShea and Brandon's definition of complexity, fungi are more complex than animals—at least when it comes to their vacuolar ATPase complexes.

The scientists looked closely at the genes encoding the ring proteins. Vma11, the ring protein unique to fungi, turns out to be a close relative of the Vma3 in both animals and fungi. The genes for Vma3 and Vma11 must therefore share a common ancestry. Thornton and his colleagues concluded that early in the evolution of fungi, an ancestral gene for ring proteins was accidentally duplicated. Those two copies then evolved into Vma3 and Vma11.

By comparing the differences in the genes for Vma3 and Vma11, Thornton and his colleagues reconstructed the ancestral gene from which they both evolved. They then used that DNA sequence to create a corresponding protein—in effect, resurrecting an 800-million-year-old protein. The scientists called this protein Anc.3-11—short for ancestor of Vma3 and Vma11. They wondered how the protein ring functioned with this ancestral protein. To find out, they inserted the gene for Anc.3-11 into the DNA of yeast. They also shut down its descendant genes, Vma3 and Vma11. Normally, shutting down the genes for the Vma3 and Vma11 proteins would be fatal because the yeast could no longer make their rings. But Thornton and his co-workers found that the yeast could survive with Anc.3-11 instead. It combined Anc.3-11 with Vma16 to make fully functional rings.

Experiments such as this one allowed the scientists to formulate a hypothesis for how the fungal ring became more complex. Fungi started out with rings made from only two proteins—the same ones found in animals like us. The proteins were versatile, able to bind to themselves or to their partners, joining up to proteins either on their right or on their left. Later the gene for Anc.3-11 duplicated into Vma3 and Vma11. These new proteins kept doing what the old ones had done: they assembled into rings for pumps. But over millions of generations of fungi, they began to mutate. Some of those mutations took away some of their versatility. Vma11, for example, lost the ability to bind to Vma3 on its clockwise side. Vma3 lost the ability to bind to Vma16 on its clockwise side. These mutations did not kill the yeast, because the proteins could still link together into a ring. They were neutral mutations, in other words. But now the ring had to be more complex because it could form successfully only if all three proteins were present and only if they arranged themselves in one pattern.

Thornton and his colleagues have uncovered precisely the kind of evolutionary episode predicted by the zero-force evolutionary law. Over time, life produced more parts—that is, more ring proteins. And then those extra parts began to diverge from one another. The fungi ended up with a more complex structure than their ancestors had. But it did not happen the way Darwin had imagined, with natural selection favoring a series of intermediate forms. Instead the fungal ring degenerated its way into complexity.

Fixing Mistakes

Gray has found another example of constructive neutral evolution in the way many species edit their genes. When cells need to make a given protein, they transcribe the DNA of its gene into RNA, the single-stranded counterpart of DNA, and then use special enzymes to replace certain RNA building blocks (called nucleotides) with other ones. RNA editing is essential to many species, including us—the unedited RNA molecules produce proteins that do not work. But there is also something decidedly odd about it. Why don't we just have genes with the correct original sequence, making RNA editing unnecessary?

The scenario that Gray proposes for the evolution of RNA editing goes like this: an enzyme mutates so that it can latch onto RNA and change certain nucleotides. This enzyme does not harm the cell, nor does it help it—at least not at first. Doing no harm, it persists. Later a harmful mutation occurs in a gene. Fortunately, the cell already has the RNA-binding enzyme, which can compensate for this mutation by editing the RNA. It shields the cell from the harm of the mutation, allowing the mutation to get passed down to the next generation and spread throughout the population. The evolution of this RNA-editing enzyme and the mutation it fixed was not driven by natural selection, Gray argues. Instead this extra layer of complexity evolved on its own—“neutrally.” Then, once it became widespread, there was no way to get rid of it.

David Speijer, a biochemist at the University of Amsterdam, thinks that Gray and his colleagues have done biology a service with the idea of constructive neutral evolution, especially by challenging the notion that all complexity must be adaptive.But Speijer worries they may be pushing their argument too hard in some cases. On one hand, he thinks that the fungus pumps are a good example of constructive neutral evolution. “Everybody in their right mind would totally agree with it,” he says. In other cases, such as RNA editing, scientists should not, in his view, dismiss the possibility that natural selection was at work, even if the complexity seems useless.

Gray, McShea and Brandon acknowledge the important role of natural selection in the rise of the complexity that surrounds us, from the biochemistry that builds a feather to the photosynthetic factories inside the leaves of trees. Yet they hope their research will coax other biologists to think beyond natural selection and to see the possibility that random mutation can fuel the evolution of complexity on its own. “We don't dismiss adaptation at all as part of that,” Gray says. “We just don't think it explains everything.”

This article was produced in collaboration with Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent division of SimonsFoundation.org.

Beryl Nelson - Diversity - It's Not Just About Being Fair

Beryl Nelson gained her undergraduate degree in Math at MIT and went on to obtain an MS in Biology at the University of Utah with an NSF Graduate Fellowship. 

In 2009, Mrs Nelson began working for Google in Hyderabad, on the engineering productivity team. It is from there that she was offered her current position at Google Krakow, as an Engineering Manager for one of the teams in websearch.

In addition to her main work, Mrs Nelson has also become interested in the published research on the data on diversity within business and its practical applications.

She has designed and co-presented diversity sessions at Grace Hopper India and Grace Hopper US, at the ACM India conference 2011 and internally within Google.

Diversity - It's Not Just About Being Fair 

Presented by: Beryl Nelson 

Google Tech Talk
March 8, 2013

ABSTRACT

Why should it matter whether you work in a team in which people all think the same way, or have different life experiences and points of view? And what can you personally do to improve diversity in your organization?

Beryl will open her talk with some of the wealth of research and data available about the value of a diverse team composition in terms of financial results and innovation. However, making a diverse team effective is not simple. The second part of the talk will include data relating to barriers to the effectiveness of diverse teams. One of the most difficult problems to deal with, and to measure, is unconscious bias. Why is it that 52% of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6 feet tall (182.8 cm), and about a third are over 6 feet 2 inches (187.8 cm)? Imaginative researchers have found statistical methods that can measure unconscious bias and other barriers to effectiveness. People who are aware of these barriers can find ways to overcome them, as Beryl will show with a few examples. Finally, the talk will also focus on recommendations to interested individuals on what they can personally do to improve the diversity of their teams.

A presentation for "Voices - Creating Global Connections" organized by Global Tech Women for International Women's Day March 8, 2013.

The Mind Report - Tamar Szabo Gendler (Yale University) and Andrew Solomon (Far from the Tree)

Andrew Solomon is author of one of the year's best psychology (on several Best 10 lists I have seen), Far From the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity. Here is the publisher blurb about the book:

From the National Book Award–winning author of The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression comes a monumental new work, a decade in the writing, about family. In Far from the Tree, Andrew Solomon tells the stories of parents who not only learn to deal with their exceptional children but also find profound meaning in doing so.

Solomon’s startling proposition is that diversity is what unites us all. He writes about families coping with deafness, dwarfism, Down syndrome, autism, schizophrenia, multiple severe disabilities, with children who are prodigies, who are conceived in rape, who become criminals, who are transgender. While each of these characteristics is potentially isolating, the experience of difference within families is universal, as are the triumphs of love Solomon documents in every chapter.

All parenting turns on a crucial question: to what extent parents should accept their children for who they are, and to what extent they should help them become their best selves. Drawing on forty thousand pages of interview transcripts with more than three hundred families, Solomon mines the eloquence of ordinary people facing extreme challenges. Whether considering prenatal screening for genetic disorders, cochlear implants for the deaf, or gender reassignment surgery for transgender people, Solomon narrates a universal struggle toward compassion. Many families grow closer through caring for a challenging child; most discover supportive communities of others similarly affected; some are inspired to become advocates and activists, celebrating the very conditions they once feared. Woven into their courageous and affirming stories is Solomon’s journey to accepting his own identity, which culminated in his midlife decision, influenced by this research, to become a parent.

Elegantly reported by a spectacularly original thinker, Far from the Tree explores themes of generosity, acceptance, and tolerance—all rooted in the insight that love can transcend every prejudice. This crucial and revelatory book expands our definition of what it is to be human.

Solomon is interviewed by Tamar Szabo Gendler (of Yale University) in this fascinating discussion.

The Mind Report

Tamar Szabo Gendler (Yale University) and Andrew Solomon (Far from the Tree)

On The Mind Report, Tamar speaks to Andrew Solomon, author of the new book, Far from the Tree. Andrew explains how his eyes were opened to the rich linguistic culture of the deaf community. Tamar asks him if he thinks schizophrenia or anorexia should be valorized as identities. Next, Andrew tells the moving story of Clinton Brown, a dwarf who exceeded all expectations, and two stories about parents of transgender children in radically different communities. Finally, Andrew has some closing words on identity, illness, and parenting. 

FOLLOW: Andrew Solomon on Twitter  

Recorded: Dec 31 |  Posted: Dec 2, 2012

Download:   wmv | mp4 | mp3 | fast mp3  

Links Mentioned:

• Andrew's new book, "Far from the Tree"
• Andrew's website, FarFromtheTree.com
• Video of Clinton Brown
• Video of Kim Reed

Wired for Culture: The Natural History of Human Cooperation

Mark Pagel stopped by the RSA to talk about the ways in which the human brain is wired for creating community and culture through cooperation.

This talk is part of his promotional tour for his new book, Wired for Culture: Origins of the Human Social Mind. At the bottom, I have included his 2011 TED Talk on how language - as a social technology - shaped human evolution.

Wired for Culture: The natural history of human cooperation

1st Mar 2012

Listen to the audio

(full recording including audience Q&A)
Please right-click link and choose "Save Link As..." to download audio file onto your computer.

RSA Thursday

Head of the University of Reading’s Evolution Laboratory and one of the world’s leading experts on human development - Mark Pagel - uses evolutionary biology, anthropology, natural history, philosophy and years of observing human behaviour around the globe to shed light on our species’ capacity for culture, cooperation and community.

Since humans left Africa less than a hundred thousand years ago there has been a staggering explosion of cultures. What caused this blooming of diversity? Why are there so many mutually incomprehensible languages, even within small territories? Why do we rejoice in rituals, wrap ourselves in flags, or define ourselves in opposition to others?

Humans are usually seen as differing from other animals because of our inherent traits of consciousness, language and intelligence. But have we had it the wrong way round? Many of these things would not exist without our propensity for culture - our ability to co-operate in small tribal societies, enabling us to pass on knowledge, beliefs and practices so that we prospered while others declined.

Join Mark Pagel at the RSA when he will demonstrate how the role of culture in natural selection shows how humans developed a mind that is hardwired for culture - so that it has outstripped our genes in determining who we are, how we think and speak, who we love and kill - and how it equips us for the challenges of life in the modern world.

See what people said on Twitter: #RSAPagel

Here is the TED Talk:

Biologist Mark Pagel shares an intriguing theory about why humans evolved our complex system of language. He suggests that language is a piece of "social technology" that allowed early human tribes to access a powerful new tool: cooperation.

Using biological evolution as a template, Mark Pagel wonders how languages evolve.

Full bio » 

Together: The Rituals Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation with Richard Sennett

UCSD recently hosted New York University sociologist and historian Richard Sennett for a discussion on why people form in-group/out-group divisions, even in large population centers, resulting in small tribal populations within metropolitan cities.




Together: The Rituals Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation with Richard Sennett

New York University sociologist and historian Richard Sennett addresses the phenomenon of why people tend to avoid engaging with others who are different, leading to a modern politics of the tribe rather than the city. In this thought-provoking talk, Sennett offers ideas on what might be done to encourage people to live with others who are racially, ethnically, religiously or economically unlike themselves. [3/2012]

Marcelo Gleiser - Can Scientists Overreach?

Marcelo Gleiser takes a look at Marilynne Robinson's (Pulitzer Prize winning author of Gilead) essay Absence of Mind in his article, Can Scientists Overreach? Robinson makes some good points about the ways science can be just as fundamentalist and narrow-minded as the worst of religion. It's cool (to me) to see a theoretical physicist picking up her arguments.

This comes from NPR's outstanding blog, 13.7 Cosmos and Culture.

Can Scientists Overreach?

April 6, 2011

by Marcelo Gleiser

"Yes," says Marilynne Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of Gilead, in her essay Absence of Mind, based on the Dwight H. Terry Lectures she delivered at Yale University in 2009.

Noel A. Tanner/Flickr

Robinson is particularly critical of fundamentalist scientism as preached by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, among others. The reading is tough, but well worth it. Her arguments are dead on, as is her prose:

"The clutch of certitudes that, together, trivialize and discredit are very much in need of being looked at again."

This, in a nutshell, is the crux of her argument: Science paints a wonderful picture of the world, but a necessarily incomplete one. To reduce everything to science and its methods impoverishes humanity. We need cultural diversity and that includes the culture of religion.

What makes some scientists so sure of their science? The practice of science, after all, relies precisely on uncertainties; a theory only works until its limits are exposed. In fact, this is a good thing, since new theories sprout from the cracks of old ones.

For science to advance it needs to fail. The truths of today will not be the truths of tomorrow.

So, asks Robinson, whence comes this certainty? She goes on to examine several cases, pointing out their weaknesses. Essentially, scientists shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations based on their science alone. For example, in criticizing Pinker's analysis of the noble savage she writes:

"... is it reasonable to debunk the myth of the Noble Savage by pondering any twentieth-century society, however remote and exotic? We can have no knowledge of their history, so we cannot know if what appears to us as primitivity is not dispossession and marginalization ... I hold no particular brief for the notion of primal innocence, yet neither am I content to see so defective a case made against it."

It gets heavier.

In 2006, Robinson wrote a scathing review of Dawkins's The God Delusion for Harper's Magazine, "Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins."

"So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

I also quote her last words:

"It is diversity that makes any natural system robust, and diversity that stabilizes culture against the eccentricity and arrogance that have so often called themselves reason and science."

Frontal attacks on religion and its practices will only produce more animosity. Fundamentalism leads to further entrenchment, not to conciliation. Perhaps a better approach is to teach science as it truly functions, constantly engaged in a two-way exchange with the culture of its time.

Much of science and religion spring from the same human desire to find meaning and direction in life. I welcome Robinson's call for humility and self-criticism in the sciences. And hope that radical religious leaders and theologians would do the same.

Tags: Marcelo Gleiser, Marilynne Robinson, Absence of Mind, Can Scientists Overreach?, NPR, blog, 13.7 Cosmos and Culture, fundamentalist, scientism, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, science, faith, cultural diversity, culture of religion, Science, fundamentalism, perspectives, Religion, diversity

Call for Chapter Submissions - Integral Perspectives on Diversity

Received this from Dr. Mark Forman at JFK University's Integral Studies Department. Looks like it will be an interesting new addition to integral theory.

Call for Chapter Submissions
Integral Perspectives on Diversity

Overview
Toni Gregory, Michael Raffanti, and Mark Forman are extremely pleased to announce a call for chapter submissions for a new book that will examine diversity issues through the lens of Integral Theory. As the first collection of its kind, we hope the volume will instigate further inquiry into diversity by integral scholars and practitioners who can deepen and expand understandings of diversity in theoretical and applied contexts. This book will be published as part of the SUNY Series in Integral Theory.

Background
Although diversity is a universal, naturally occurring, complex, generative phenomenon, very little has been done to expand the conceptualization and study of diversity dynamics beyond conventional, reductionist frameworks. The most comprehensive approach to date is that of R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. who, in works such as Beyond Race and Gender (1991) expanded the concept of diversity beyond conventional perspectives, demonstrating its complex nature and the importance of analyzing diversity dynamics from multiple perspectives. Defining diversity as “any mixture of elements characterized by differences and similarities”, Thomas broke new ground by conceptualizing diversity as having an unlimited number of dimensions with unlimited opportunities for interaction among the dimensions. Thomas also introduced the idea that an individual’s worldview heavily contributed to the nature and outcome of the diversity dynamics in which s/he was involved.

An AQAL approach to diversity would similarly recognize that diversity dynamics are much more intricate than mere issues of difference between individuals or groups and are generated as a result of the complex process of integration and differentiation in which similarities, in addition to differences, play a key role. An AQAL approach should, at a minimum, take into consideration all five elements of the Integral model—quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types. Were such an approach clearly articulated, it would offer researchers and practitioners an orientation to diversity that may avoid the “quadrant absolutism” that limits conventional approaches (Wilber, personal communication, April 14, 2009). In this paradigm, the four quadrants represent a co-enacted field of probability waves and potentiality/creativity out of which multiple, complex events emerge in each quadrant and interact with each other within and between quadrants.

Speaking at an integral Zen seminar, Diane Hamilton commented on the need for an integral approach to diversity that addresses the complexities of developmental levels. She asserted, “Diversity training, when it stays at green [altitude], is radically incomplete…it opens people, it creates new perspectives, and it creates awareness, but it’s not enough to hold what actually needs to happen” (Wilber & Hamilton, 2007). In keeping with Diane’s call, we have each been involved in developing integral understandings of diversity across disciplines of politics, leadership, psychology, and organizational studies. At the most recent Integral Theory Conference in July 2010, Toni and Michael presented on their developmental theory of Integral Diversity Maturity as applied to the autobiographies of Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X and have contributed a journal article to the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice based on that presentation. Mark has written as a substantial chapter on the topic of diversity in his text, A Guide to Integral Psychotherapy. In his presentation at the conference he further dealt with the need for a dialectical and balanced inclusion of multiple perspectives on diversity, including the tradition of conservative African-American thought. The idea for this edited volume emerged the dialog we had at the conference and subsequent communications.

The development of a field dedicated to the study of the nature, processes, and dynamics of diversity remains embryonic. Although there has been considerable research with respect to issues regarding specific human characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and other characteristics used to differentiate and disenfranchise, a limited conceptual understanding of diversity dynamics has rendered scholarship in the field frozen in time. This is precisely where the contributions of integral approaches can be valuable and yield greatly needed conceptual clarity that takes into account the complexity of diversity.

Topics
Those wishing to contribute to this volume should submit a 300-500 word abstract outlining the proposed chapter. Co-authored pieces are welcomed, as are submissions from new and emerging scholars who have not yet published. We hope to attract a wide range of abstracts representing many disciplinary perspectives and many aspects of diversity and Integral Theory. We welcome meta-theoretical works, as well as empirical studies or practical applications. Topics may include (but are certainly not limited to): developmental models of diversity; integral leadership and diversity; integral models of diversity training; the relationship between diversity and complexity; identity issues; diversity and issues of economic class; and diversity and power. It is not necessary to address all five elements of Integral Theory in any single contribution, though comprehensiveness is appreciated. As long as a larger AQAL context is held, we welcome contributions that focus on specific areas of Integral Theory.

Criteria
The selection process will be competitive and our goal is to select 12-15 outstanding submissions for publication. We are seeking works that are academically sound; demonstrate familiarity with Integral Theory and its AQAL model; and communicate in a, provocative and novel fashion the complex and dynamic nature of diversity.

Our editorial involvement will range from a minor to significant depending on the chapter and issues it takes on as well as requests for support and input. It is important to us that authors have their own voice. At the same time we want this volume to be extremely well written and a powerful contribution to the field, so we won’t hesitate to provide direct feedback and suggestions to authors throughout the process. We look forward to this collaborative aspect of this ambitious project.

General Timeline
Below are the general due dates for the various phases of this project:
* March 2011: Announcement made for call for chapters
* July 1, 2011: 300-500 word abstracts due
* October 31, 2011: Final submissions due in APA format.
* November 1, 2011: Manuscript submitted to SUNY for peer review

Note that the volume will be done in APA style so please plan on submitting your final chapter in this academic format.

Abstracts and chapters should be emailed to Michael.Raffanti@myunion.edu, as well as any questions about the book or potential book contributions.

Thank you for considering contributing to this exciting and timely volume and please pass this call for chapters along to others who might have an important offering

Toni Gregory, Ed.D.
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Ph.D. Program in Interdisciplinary Studies
Union Institute & University

Michael A. Raffanti, Ed.D., J.D.
Core Faculty
Ed.D. Program in Educational Leadership
Union Institute & University

Mark D. Forman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Integral Theory Program
John F. Kennedy University

Tags: Integral, diversity, multiculturalism, perspectives, AQAL, Integral Theory, Call for Chapter Submissions, Integral Perspectives on Diversity, Toni Gregory, Michael Raffanti, Mark Forman, SUNY Press, Series in Integral Theory

P2P Foundation - Ten Theses About Global Commons Movement

Excellent article posted a while back by Michel Bauwens at the P2P Foundation site - the original author was Stefan Meretz, written for the Berlin Commons Conference.

Ten Theses About Global Commons Movement

Michel Bauwens

5th January 2011

Written by Stefan Meretz of keimform.de on the occasion of the Berlin Commons Conference, November 1-2, 2010, the following theses are still valuable for further reflection.

Stefan Meretz:

“1. The global commons movement exists as an assemblage of movements spread around the globe beginning to become aware of its global and interrelated character. As a global movement it is still establishing its own self-confidence rather than being a coherent agent.

2. The diversity of commons movements is their constitutive feature. They can be distinguished along numerous dimensions:

* Type of resources and products:
– natural: water, atmosphere, fossil fuels, renewable energy etc.
– produced: music, movies, texts, software, designs, hardware, infrastructures etc.
* Composition of resources and products:
– material: natural goods, material products, digital carriers, infrastructures
– non-material: knowledge, software, cultural goods
* Cultures of dealing with resources and products
– traditional: indigenous experiences and practices
– generated: digitally based communication
* Forms of self-organization (»governance«)
– independent autonomous
– institutional oriented
* Relationship to market and state
– affinity and connection to market and/or state
– distance and independence from market and state

3. The diversity is expressed in different and partly opposing perceptions and approaches:

* preserving vs. generating commons
* natural vs. digital commons
* independent vs. market-oriented vs. state-oriented commons
* modifying market/state vs. replacing market/state
* local money vs. no money
* and much more

4. The different and opposing perceptions are mirroring the rudimentary stage of reflection and developing self-awareness. These are differences within the same.

5. What this same is wherein differences are visible is still unclear and will emerge stepwise as far as the practices of commons develop. Before that there is no necessity to move forward reflexively and theoretically. Learning by advancing. The further theses are thus speculative but justified.

6. The commons are objectively in opposition to capitalism, because they represent a different logic. Where they are successful, market can not evolve. Where they manage their own affairs, the state is not required.

7. The opposition against capitalist logic is commonly perceived but interpreted differently. The majority interprets commons as a supplement to market and state. The word »beyond« in the slogan »Commons Beyond Market and State« is read as »beside«. This is a justified reading for the current stage of development.

8. At the same time the commons are the sublation of capitalism. The commons do not only practically occupy fields where a market cannot grow any longer or where the market is pushed to the periphery of free areas, but they bring a new way of societally producing livelihoods into the world, thus a new mode of production. The new mode of production is not a special one concerning the mentioned diverse areas, but a general one.

9. The Commons transcend capitalism in a fourfold way: ending, fulfilling, preserving, elevating. They end the logics of exclusion of capitalism and replace them with inclusion as social principle. They fulfill the promises of individual unfolding of personality. They preserve meaningful achievements and products. They elevate human needs to the norm of societal mediation and its satisfaction to the meaning of societal life.

10. Commons potentially being a new form of societal production do not guarantee that they become prevalent. Nothing happens by itself, it has to be done. The process of becoming aware just has begun. But it has begun.”

Tags: P2P Foundation, Ten Theses About Global Commons Movement, Stefan Meretz, keimform.de, Berlin Commons Conference, Commons, P2P, society, diversity, economics, Michel Bauwens

Alva Noë - You Say 'Tomato'

Another cool post from Alva Noë at NPR's 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog - a fun look at variation in the development of language.

You Say 'Tomato'

January 21, 2011

by Alva Noë

My dad speaks with a German accent. Or so I am told. I can't hear it. Nothing unusual about that. But this is an instance of a very important, yet poorly understand, human phenomenon: the Variation Effect (as I'll call it).

To bring the Variation Effect into focus, consider some examples:

How does one pronounce the word "thursday?" Well, they do it one way in London's cockney East End, and a different way in afro-caribbean Brixton. Different pronunciations abound in Brisbane, Brooklyn, Ashville, and British Columbia. There is no one way to say "thursday," or any other word for that matter.

Variety occurs not only at the level of regions and populations. The next time you are at a table with friends, or sitting at a bar, or in a shop, pay attention to the way people talk. You'll notice surprising variation in inflection, emphasis, contraction, rhythm, melody, volume, timbre, etc.

In fact, it's variation all the way down, even at the level of the individual. You choose your words and articulate your speech one way when you're talking to an elderly man in the nursing home, and another way when you're addressing students from the podium, or when you're discussing the quarterback's performance with other fans at the stadium. What counts as stylish, thoughtful, polite, sensitive, respectful, funny, generous varies from one setting to another, depending on, among other things, to whom you are talking, whether the conversation is professional, and so on. It is mark either of stupidity or arrogance to be unable or unwilling to accommodate one's manner of speech to the circumstances in which one finds oneself.

As variation plays a central role in biological evolution, it also plays a fascinating role in the evolution of languages, as Guy Deutscher tells in his delightful book The Unfolding of Language.

Consider: The French say pied, whereas we say foot. They say pere, where we say father. To our for, they have pour, and where we say first, they say premier. Systematically there is a correspondence between words with p sounds in French and words with f sounds in English. What explains this, say historians of language, is that the French and English languages descend from a common ancestor. For various reasons the French, but not the English, preserves the more ancient p-sound pronunciations that would have been used in this ancestral tongue. At some point in the last four hundred years or so, speakers of languages such as English, German and Danish, but not speakers of French, Italian and Spanish, started to say f whereas earlier we said p.

How did this transition from happen? What's remarkable is that the change goes unmentioned in the historical record. How can this be? First, how can people have failed to notice and remark on a steady systematic change in the way people talk? And second, how could they have failed to shut it down. Speakers love to criticize mispronunciation, and surely that's what saying f for would have sounded like, a big error!

One hypothesis is that the change was imperceptible because it was gradual. As Deutscher explains, leading linguists as recently as the middle of the last century thought this gradual-change thesis was plausible. But it isn't. It's ludicrous. As Deutscher remarks, there's p, there's pf, and there's f. How is gradual change supposed to mask those contrasts? You can hear the difference, can't you?

Some ideas are beautiful and the explanation Deutscher offers is a very beautiful indeed. The very question — why didn't people notice the sound change when it happened? — relies on the tacit assumption that there was ever a single way people pronounced the words in question. But there is no one way to pronounce these words or any other. The ground of linguistic reality is comprehensible variation. And so there never was a single or unified sound change.

Then what happened? All there is and ever was is variation, but what does change, over time, is the frequency of different forms or pronunciations across the field of variations. People didn't change the way they talked. What changed was the number of people who talked one way relative to those who talked another.

And this explains why we didn't notice the sound change. This is an example of the Variation Effect. We have great facility adapting to, accommodating and ignoring variation.

Did you notice when "bad," in the mouths of certain speakers, starting meaning "good," or, to go back in time, when "cool" started to mean stylish and positive? I hear my student describe a book as sweet and I know he means something very different from what my mother would mean if she were to describe the very same book as sweet. We are fluent and adaptable when it comes to different ways of talking here and now, and so, with all the more reason, we are not nonplussed by changes in the frequency distribution of different ways of talking. Meaning changes are not one-off occurrences, like heart attacks. They are gradual shifts in the behavior of lots of people against a background of unceasing variation.

Or consider a visual example: What does this tomato look like? Well, it looks one way from up close, when I hold it in my hand. It looks entirely differently when I look at it from across the room, or when it is sitting on a pile of two hundred tomatoes in the grocery store. And so likewise, its color looks one way under the store's fluorescent overheads and entirely differently in day light, or in the yellow tungsten lighting in the kitchen at home.

How does it really look? There's no such thing.

The point is not that the tomato isn't really red, or that there isn't in fact a single word thursday. It's that to perceive entities or properties such as these is to be knowledgeably or skillfully sensitive to patterns or stuctures of variation — to the ways how things look, or how words sound, predictably changes as circumstances change.

To perceive a word is to perceive something that is, of its basic nature, open to varieties of ways of showing up. A word that could only be pronounced one way (by one person? on a single occasion?) would not be a word at all. And to perceive a colored object is to understand — practically, not intellectually — that how it looks would vary in reliable ways were the lighting, or one's angle of viewing, to change. That's just what it is to have a certain color. It's to be a locus of possible visual variation of a certain style.

To perceive or cognize the world at all is to be sensitive the way patterns of variation allow for invariance to show up for us. We achieve access to that which is invariant (the color, the word) not because we are blind to variation, but because we are so fluent in our mastery of variation that we can let it recede for us and rest in the background.

And this fluent mastery of ever-present variation — the Variation Effect — is the hallmark of understanding.

Tags: language, evolution, variation, diversity, Alva Noë, You Say 'Tomato', NPR, 13.7 Cosmos and Culture, neuroscience, Guy Deutscher, The Unfolding of Language

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