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

Archives of General Psychiatry - Ketamine May Relieve Depression Quickly for Those With Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

Another study confirming that ketamine can extinguish even the most treatment resistant forms of depression - this time it is in treatment resistant bi-polar depression. For some, this treatment could be the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

Journal Reference:
Nancy Diazgranados, Lobna Ibrahim, Nancy E. Brutsche, Andrew Newberg, Phillip Kronstein, et al. (2010). A Randomized Add-on Trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate Antagonist in Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 67[8]:793-802

Ketamine May Relieve Depression Quickly for Those With Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

CHICAGO—A single intravenous dose of the anesthetic agent ketamine appears to reduce symptoms of depression within 40 minutes among those with bipolar disorder who have not responded to other treatments, according to a report in the August issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

"Bipolar disorder is one of the most severe psychiatric disorders and ranks in the top 10 causes of medical disability worldwide," the authors write as background information in the article. About 4 percent of Americans will develop bipolar disorder in their lifetimes, and depressive symptoms dominate for most of the course of the illness. Several treatments for bipolar depression are currently approved, but some patients do not respond to these therapies despite adequate trials. In addition, existing treatments are associated with a lag of onset; most patients do not respond within the first week of therapy, resulting in considerable illness and increased suicide risk.

One reason for the lack of better therapies is a limited understanding of the neurobiological basis of bipolar disorder, the authors note. However, recent research suggest dysfunction in the brain's glutamatergic system—which plays a role in information processing and memory formation—may contribute. Nancy Diazgranados, M.D., M.S., and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md., assessed the effectiveness of one modulator of this system—ketamine hydrochloride, commonly used as an anesthetic—for bipolar depression.

From October 2006 through June 2009, 18 participants with bipolar depression that had failed to respond to the medications lithium or valproate received an intravenous infusion of either ketamine or a placebo on two test days two weeks apart. The order of the infusions was randomly assigned. Participants were assessed using a depression rating scale before each injection and then 40, 80, 120 and 230 minutes and one, two, three, seven, 10 and 14 days afterward.

Within 40 minutes, those who received ketamine experienced a significant improvement in depressive symptoms compared with those who took placebo, an improvement that was largest at day two and remained significant through day three. At some point during the course of the trial, 71 percent of participants responded to ketamine and 6 percent responded to placebo.

"These findings are particularly noteworthy because a substantial proportion of study participants had been prescribed complex polypharmacy regimens in the past with substantial treatment failures," the authors write. "The mean [average] number of past antidepressant trials was seven, and more than 55 percent of participants failed to respond to electroconvulsive therapy. The toll of this protracted and refractory illness on the subjects was evident, in that two-thirds of participants were on psychiatric disability and nearly all were unemployed."

No serious adverse effects were reported during the study. The results lend support to the hypothesis that the glutamatergic system is implicated in the development of bipolar disorder, and that targeting it may lead to improved therapies. "Future research will need to address whether differences in kinetics associated with intravenous administration—which allows for faster absorption and avoids hepatic metabolism—are important or necessary for rapid antidepressant effects to occur," the authors write. In addition, "future studies should examine strategies for long-term maintenance of ketamine's rapid antidepressant response."

Editor's Note: Funding for this work was supported by the Intramural Research Program at the NIMH, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and by a National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression Award. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.

Tags: depression, bipolar, Psychology, brain, Ketamine, Relieve Depression, Quickly, Treatment-Resistant, Bipolar Disorder, glutamatergic system, Archives of General Psychiatry, JAMA, neurobiology, neuroscience

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

Be Scofield - When Positive Thinking Becomes Religion: How “The Secret” and Law of Attraction Poison Spirituality

Be Scofield takes on the magical thinking and spiritual materialism crowd in his recent article at Tikkun Daily. I'm sure he will get some serious flack for this, but it's a necessary article. I've already taken a stand against this crap over the years, so it's good to see it getting into the mainstream a little more.

When Positive Thinking Becomes Religion: How “The Secret” and Law of Attraction Poison Spirituality

by: Be Scofield on August 1st, 2010

Esther-Hicks channels magnetic entities which she calls "Abraham"

Rhonda Byrne, author of the best selling DVD/book "The Secret" is releasing a sequel in August called "The Power."

We must understand that the founder of a cult or new religion has no room for compromise: absolutes are necessary. True believers in mystical psychotherapy will not embrace a gospel with modest claims: it must be all or nothing. – Martin Larson

“He could go to school and daydream.” That was the advice given by positive thinking guru, law of attraction teacher and “channel” Esther Hicks aka “Abraham” to a black woman who asked how her son should approach learning about the difficult history of slavery in school. After telling the curious mother “none of that [slavery] has anything to do with him,” and that “he won’t have to deal with it” Abraham-Hicks proceeded to equate the teaching of African-American history with a family legacy of passing down “bad” feelings. But this is nothing compared to what she said about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When the woman asked her about a way to interpret his life in an empowering way for her son Esther-Hicks launched into something that can be best described as an ignorant stream of psychobabble. She described his vision in the vaguest of terms and then said, “He lost sight of his dream momentarily…he began to push against. And when one pushes against in a very fast moving stream abrupt things happened…It’s trying to get others to agree with us about our dreams that causes backlash. But when we just dream them ourselves…the resources of the universe come into alignment with us.” Blaming Dr. King for his own death was paired with her instruction to the woman to not tell her son about the unjust things that Dr. King had to struggle against. Her point was that slavery, racism and segregation are all “negative” and so therefore we aren’t supposed to think about them. And if all of this wasn’t bad enough, when responding to a question on Oprah’s radio show about how the law of attraction would lead to a young girl attracting her own rape and murder, Esther-Hicks responded by saying parents don’t teach their children how to think properly and they are influenced by the negative thinking of the adults around them. She told Oprah, “if they are listening to the guidance within they could not comfortably ever settle on the thoughts that would lead them to attract something unwanted.”

Esther-Hicks is not a fringe teacher, nor an exception, but much more the rule amongst a chorus of spiritual teachers that ally themselves with the latest positive thinking fad known as the “law of attraction.” As the self-proclaimed original source of the modern craze for the law of attraction, Esther-Hicks was featured in the original version of Rhonda Byrne’s 2006 mega-bestselling hit The Secret. Reportedly paid $500,000 for her role she was removed from the second and current version once Byrne decided that no presenters would receive compensation. Esther-Hicks has also appeared on the Oprah radio show, has spoken to tens-of-thousands and has sold hundreds of thousands of books promoting this law which as I demonstrate below is anything but and nothing new. And like The Secret, Esther-Hicks gains credibility from other well known teachers. Dr. Wayne Dyer says Abraham are “great Masters of the Universe,” while Louise Hay says they are “some of the best teachers on the planet today” (apparently the channel Abraham are not just one magnetic energy but many and thus at times referred to in the plural). When speaking about Esther-Hicks’ book Ask and it is Given, Dyer even told his audience “Whether you believe in channeling or not, please open yourself to this information because it is the most valuable information you can hear.” Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks, law of attraction teachers themselves, support Esther’s teachings and state that Esther and Jerry Hicks are “two people of high integrity whom I admire very much.”

Cast members from "The Secret" being interviewed on the Oprah Winfrey Show

Despite the removal of Esther-Hicks, The Secret has done extraordinarily well, selling over four million copies with 19 million in print. Byrne’s skills as an infomercial and television producer paid off extremely well. The movie’s flashy graphics, creative storyline and Davinci Code-esque ink stamp logo with quill pen captured the imagination of spiritual America. Her gross misappropriation of such figures as Socrates and Emerson as Secret practitioners also helped convince her audience. And now she is set to release a new book called The Power. With a first printing of two million it’s almost guaranteed to be another blockbuster. But as I illustrate below The Secret is filled the same sort of ignorant, harmful and racist teachings that Esther-Hicks promotes and it is supported by media personalities and spiritual teachers. Will The Power be any different? Will Larry King and Oprah who have both featured the cast of The Secret on their shows multiple times continue to uncritically promote Byrne and law of attraction preachers? Oprah had a look of amazement on her face during The Secret show and concluded, “Watch it with your children. I think it would be amazing to start your children with this kind of thinking.” When will Michael Beckwith (one of only two black people in the movie) who continues to promote himself with The Secret take a stand against the racism of these new prophets of positive thinking? The Secret received a large amount of criticism in the press but where are the spiritual leaders taking a speak out against this new form of fundamentalism that hides behind the false layer of feel good, instant gratification, commercialized spirituality? And perhaps most importantly, what does a healthy and responsible spirituality grounded in the reality of structural inequality look like?

A Very Brief History of Positive Thinking

Exactly fifty years before Rhonda Byrne published The Secret the first positive thinking audio program was released on vinyl record. Named The Strangest Secret it was produced by Earl Nightengale in 1956 and its release was a breakthrough moment in the history of the audio self-help genre as it sold over one million copies. His LP also shares the same central message as The Secret, “we become what we think about,” and he appeals to the same sources of authority such as Emerson and Socrates. After his phenomenal success Nightengale went on to form Nightengale Content, one of the largest self-help audiobook publishers. Whether or not Byrne borrowed the title is something only she knows but what is certain is that the The Secret and law of attraction are nothing new. They draw from a variety of sources both religious and secular.

Byrne's inspiration behind "The Secret" states, "Do not talk about poverty; do not investigate it, or concern yourself with it...Get rich; that is the best way you can help the poor."

Nightengale’s LP was one of many secular teachings about positive thinking in the twentieth century. Two of the best selling depression era books were on the subject. Selling more than 30 million copies since it’s release in 1937 Napolean Hill’s Think and Grow Rich condensed the ideas of some of the most wealthy people of the era into 13 principles of personal achievement. The similarities to the modern day positive thinking movement are clear. The classic book states, “thoughts, like magnets, attract to us the forces, the people, the circumstances of life which harmonize with [them].” Thus the goal is to “magnetize our minds with intense desire for riches.” Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People also published in 1937 and another first amongst the positive thinking genre has sold over 15 million copies to date. The earliest source of positive affirmations comes from the french pharmacist Emile Coue who in the 1910’s began employing “auto-suggestion” by teaching his patients to repeat the affirmation “Everyday and in every way things are getting better and better.” The Science of Getting Rich published in 1910 by Wallace D. Wattles is the book that inspired Byrne to write The Secret. Because of the recent affiliation and promotion by Byrne it has achieved a renewed interest but it is filled with troublesome statements like this, “Do not talk about poverty; do not investigate it, or concern yourself with it…Get rich; that is the best way you can help the poor.” And in the 1950’s Norman Vincent Peale turned on America by merging Christianity with techniques for overcoming daily problems in The Power of Positive Thinking.

The religious origins of positive thinking and the law of attraction also known as New Thought are attributed to Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, a 19th century mesmerist and clockmaker. Rejecting the dominant Calvinism of his day, he recognized how this theology terrorized the hearts and minds of America by threatening them with God’s immanent and unpredictable judgment of hellfire and damnation. Quimby believed this was a primary cause of a predominant form of illness at the time labeled as “neurasthenia,” or invalidism. Its symptoms included weakness, insomnia, headaches, tiredness, digestive problems and aching backs. Thus one of his methods of healing was to simply explain to his patients that the harsh worldview of Calvinism wasn’t actually real and that the universe was fundamentally benevolent, loving and caring. As an alternative to the bleeding, purging and other rudimentary tactics used to cure this illness, the “mind-cure” method proved much more appealing. Prominent 19th century figures such as William James, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Jane Addams and Margaret Sanger all suffered with invalidism at some point in their lives. Mary Baker Eddy experienced this debilitating illness from a young age and it was only when meeting with Quimby in 1863 that she was healed. After Quimby passed away a few years later, Eddy stole his teachings, claimed them as her own and then branded them as Christian Science (Quimby used this label at least once in his writings.)

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science

Decisively a Christian, Eddy and others believed they had discovered the same healing techniques of Jesus. An important point of clarification here is that this 19th century Christian root of New Thought (coined around 1895) is what distinguishes it from the later New Age movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s characterized by crystals, chakra healings, trance mediums and channeling. Based on the Bible, the various strains within the New Thought movement such as Christian Science, Unity, Divine Science and Religious Science appealed to disenchanted Christians who rejected the traditional forms of the faith. While not monolithic the movement drew from common sources of inspiration such as Emerson’s transcendentalism, the Gospels, Hinduism and the Swedenborgian influenced spiritism movement. Some of the general principles were that the kingdom of heaven is within us, God is universal love and wisdom and one with humans, mental states lead to sickness and health, and that humans can experience the infinite power of the divine through healing, creativity and beauty. There were numerous contributors and popularizers to this fast growing movement – too many to be named but among the most significant were; Emma Curtis Hopkins known as the “teachers of teachers” for the pivotal role she played teaching many New Thought leaders; Warren Felt Evans, author of six volumes of New Thought ideas; Horatio Dresser, editor of The Quimby Manuscripts and Ernest Holmes author of The Science of Mind and founder of Religious Science.

As one of the early contributors to the positive thinking and law of attraction movements Eddy, who was quite dogmatic laid the groundwork for the disturbing and irresponsible claims about the power of our minds to heal sickness. Look at how she spoke of the power of belief in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,

That the body can suffer from heat, cold or fatigue is only a false belief…The arm grows strong only because he believes that exercise will make it so…Man requires meat and bread only because of his delusions; when first created, man’s life was self-sustaining. Food neither helps nor harms. Eating never made a man live nor has abstention from it ever caused death…A boil cannot be painful, for it merely manifests by inflammation and swelling a belief which is called a boil…When a bone is broken or a head chopped off, the man remains unchanged.

It’s no wonder that many Christian Scientists to this day refuse medical treatment because of their magical beliefs in the power of the mind. But what is more striking is the similarity between Eddy’s early irrational claims about sickness and those of The Secret. Rhonda Byrne doesn’t get flu shots because, “if you’re feeling good, how can you attract any illness to you?” Bob Proctor states, “Disease cannot live in a body that’s in a healthy emotional state,” and Michael Beckwith claims because of The Secret “I’ve seen kidneys regenerated. I’ve seen cancer dissolved.” The Secret states, “if someone is overweight, it came from thinking fat thoughts.”

The Shadow of The Secret

You can have, be, or do anything you want, all you need to do is ask, believe and receive - The Secret

The Secret promises the power of God. Based on an absolutist version of the law of attraction it explains all phenomena, both positive and negative as the direct result of an individual’s thinking. The widely accepted principle that your thoughts affect your reality is taken to an extreme that can be best described as fundamentalism. The Secret states, “Likewise, there are no exclusions for the law of attraction. If something came to you, you drew it, with prolonged thought. The law of attraction is precise.” One of the contributors chiropractor Dr. Joe Vitale explains, “You’re going to immediately say, ‘I didn’t attract the car accident…I didn’t particularly attract the debt.’ And I’m here to be a little bit in your face and to say, yes you did attract it.” James Aurthur Ray told an audience, “The Law of Attraction says like attracts like…you lock into something…and BANG! You’ve got a Mercedes. And that’s how it works.” Joe Vitale states, “This is like having the universe as your catalogue and you flip through it and go, ‘Well I’d like to have this experience and I’d like to have that product and I’d like to have a person like that’ … It is you just placing your order with the universe. It’s really that easy.”The Secret describes example after example, cancer, huge bills and hardship are all results of people’s negative thoughts while checks arriving at the door, success and being cured from breast cancer are examples of the power of The Secret. Yes, the DVD advises you to visit their website, print out a copy of a blank check from the “Bank of the Universe,” fill in your dollar amount and wait for the money to start rolling in. To top this off the film shows a young boy in Africa being healed with a “gratitude” rock, advises abused women to write down all of the positive things about their abusive partners, a young boy manifesting a bike almost instantly and a woman visualizing an expensive piece of jewelry to have it appear moments later.

James Arthur Ray from "The Secret" said, "I know many people, for instance, of the Jewish faith and heritage, who don't necessarily believe that the Holocaust was bad."

The Secret employs a wide range of “authority” figures, all of whom are highly successful in their endeavors to provide the legitimacy for the principles being taught. 24 people (19 white men, one black man, one black woman and three white women) hold a variety of jobs including a business consultant, sales coach, investor, chiropractor, Feng Shui master, spiritual teacher, author, doctor, physicist, marketing specialist and personal coach among others. Although these titles aren’t always what they seem. James Aurthur Ray who is now facing three counts of manslaughter for deaths in his $10,000 per head sweat lodge ceremony claims to be a “philosopher.” However, he admitted in an interview that he is a few hours short of a B.A. in behavioral science. (ABC recently did a full length show on James Ray and his Sedona sweat lodge disaster.) And Joe Vitale is a doctor of chiropractic who now offers the “Rolls Royce Phantom Mastermind” experience. For a low price of $7,500 you can spend three hours riding in a Rolls Royce with Vitale while discussing your future riches. The movie also grossly missapropriates Socrates, Beethoven, Joseph Campbell, Buddha, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Emerson and Einstein to claim that they all used The Secret. When the Buddha said, “We are what we think” I’m doubtful that he meant as The Secret claims “Like Aladdin’s Genie, the law of attraction grants our every command.”

The Secret is overly obsessed with money and is filled with particularly disturbing claims in this respect. Bob Proctor states,

“Why do you think that 1 percent of the population earns around 96% of all of the money that’s being earned? Do you think that’s an accident? It’s designed that way. They understand something. They understand the Secret, and now you are being introduced to The Secret.”

Rhonda Byrne confirms this line of thought when speaking about those who have money,

“They focused on thoughts of wealth and the Universe moved people, circumstances, and events to deliver wealth to them. The wealth they have, you have also. The only difference between you and them is that they thought the thoughts to bring the wealth to them. Your wealth is waiting in the invisible, and to bring it into the visible, think wealth!…The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts.” [emphasis added]

Jack Canfield, author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series describes the fruits of using the Secret while images of his Malibu mansion are shown in the background,

“Since I learned the Secret and started applying it to my life, my life has truly become magical…I live in a four-and-a-half million dollar mansion…I get to vacation in all the fabulous spots of the world. I’ve climbed mountains. I’ve explored. I’ve been on safaris. And all of this happened, and continues to happen, because of knowing how to apply The Secret.”

Read the whole article.

Tags: culture, Psychology, Spirituality, spiritual materialism, Be Scofield, When Positive Thinking Becomes Religion, The Secret, Law of Attraction, Poison Spirituality, Tikkun Daily, Oprah, Esther Hicks, Rhonda Byrne, New Age, James Arthur Ray, Jack Canfield

ZOOM’D: Pathways to Expanded Mindsets (Terri O'Fallon)

Terri was one of the featured presentations I attended and blogged at the Integral Theory Conference this weekend. I loved her work. This is an older podcast/interview she did at Zoom'd Leadership in 2009.

Now Playing: Pathways to Expanded Mindsets

ZOOM’D welcomes Terri O’Fallon, Ph.D., accomplished practitioner/researcher in learning and change in human systems, to examine the pathways to more expanded stages of leader development. Terri explores the nature of mindset growth and expansion—the distinctive contours of leadership levels involved—and the practices, processes, and approaches proving central to “up-shifting” leaders into new, expanded developmental capacities. The show’s focus will incorporate emphasis on community, and how the building of close developmental cohorts can accelerate the evolutionary cycle of leadership.

• download mp3
• itunes

Tags: leadership, development, Psychology, mind, Pathways to Expanded Mindsets, ZOOM’D, Terri O’Fallon, Pacific Integral, human systems, change, up-shifting leaders, developmental capacities

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

Panel: What is the Relationship Between Integral Psychotherapy and Transpersonal Psychotherapy? (Part 2) #itc2010

More fun stuff - I wish I could have seen more of the psychology sessions. This is part two of two posts on this panel - too much for one post. (Part one is here.) OK, so I didn't get this done last night as planned . . . apologies.

Panel: What is the Relationship Between Integral Psychotherapy and Transpersonal Psychotherapy? Ray Greenleaf, Elliott Ingersoll, Janet Lewis, Andre Marquis, Joanne Rubin, Douglas Tatyryn, Jefferey Jessum

We were joined by a special guest, someone who has seen the evolution of transpersonal psychology into integral psychology, and has guided the process in some ways, Roger Walsh.

There's no abstract for this, but the topic should speak for itself.

[PLEASE NOTE: I am paraphrasing the panelists comments as accurately as I can - these are not to be taken as quotes.]

Please note:
IP = Integral Psychotherapy or psychology
TP = Transpersonal psychology
IT = Integral theory

OK, then, on with part two . . . .

Ray offered an observation:

• Psychotherapy = to serve the soul

Elliott:

• What is the soul?

Ray:

• The soul is that which brings meaning, depth, luminosity - (terms which also need to be defined, in my opinion, and that of those on the panel as well)
• He had mentioned earlier that as an earlier student of Jung, he finds a rich territory in bridging Jung and Wilber (and for those who know, Wilber has been very critical of Jung, while also acknowledging his debt to Jung)

There was then a brief discussion of Wilber having dropped the use of Transpersonal psychology in 1995 (with the publication of SES), due to its pre/trans issues, inordinate focus on altered states, etc. Ray suggested that he did not so much drop it as move beyond it into a larger field.

Elliott:

• This whole topic can be tied to the history of psychology
• Wilhelm Wundt as the father of Western psychology
• But Wundt was somewhat integral in looking at various elements of the psyche, including the brain, intelligence, and other factors

Doug:

• Is there a consensus that integral transcends and includes TP?

Janet: (the lone dissent)

• Yes and No.
• Each sees itself as subsuming the other.

Doug:

• Isn't that part of the integral model?
• What does TP offer that is not included in IP?

Andre:

• (citing Maslow): any psychology that does not account for higher stages/states or functions of consciousness as much as lower states/stages and functions is not complete
• IP transcends and includes TP

Janet:

• There is no way to know what we don't know (I'm not clear on the context of this statement, there may have been a side conversation at this point)

Doug: (offers this as a general rhetorical question)

• Is Ken still doing transpersonal and we're just confusing it with integral?

Ray:

• Integral handles the complexity
• Ken moved through TP into something bigger
• Integral is a huge space for us to play in
• There are likely to be things we have missed, that Ken has missed, that we will discover later

Elliott:

• TP developed to hold ideas and experiences that the humanistic models could not
• IP offers a bigger lens than TP can provide
• It's part of the evolution of psychology

Joanne: (she had been pretty quiet through the discussion, and Ray asked her what she was thinking)

• I'm wondering about the audience reaction . . .
• What is the relevance of this discussion
• Does this matter?

Ray opened up the Q&A portion at this point . . .

John Wagnon (who blogged the critics panel here) asked an excellent question:

• What techniques has IP offered that it created itself, techniques that are not borrowed/included from other systems?

Doug:

• IP is an operating system
• It points out the various practices to fill in the gaps

Doug mentioned at some point, and maybe I covered this in the previous post, that IP is a map, and it offers a way to fine tune interventions to the person and the dysfunction - kind of a meta-model he can use to orient himself

Ray:

• 3-2-1 shadow work has a place, but it is not true shadow work
• If that is your shadow work practice, you will be carrying a big shadow with you for the rest of your life - it's a false answer

[I am SO in agreement with that comment]

Jeff:

• Same thing with Big Mind and nondual consciousness
• You are not going to get enlightened in an afternoon session with Genpo Roshi
• It's a taste, not a real practice

[again, I SO agree with that comment]

And with that, we come to an end. This is was a fun discussion to witness. The general conclusion, with Janet as a lone dissent, is that IP transcends and includes TP - and also that IP is more of a generalizing map, or an operating system, than it is a unique form of therapy.

At one point, there was discussion about what might happen if IP DID become a part of the APA sections, would it lose it's uniqueness. There was some conjecture that we might see Integral CBT, Integral Self Psychology, Integral DBT, and so, with each of the various therapies now in use adopting the Integral tag (as we are seeing right now with mindfulness-based [fill in the blank]).

I don't really see this happening any time soon.

But what we really need is to find a way to make IP assessable to working therapists. My girlfriend looks at this stuff and says two things: (1) I'm already doing most of this stuff - my practice is bio-psycho-social, and (2) the model is way to complex to be useful when I am sitting with a client - at that moment, all that matters is the relationship with the client.

It's hard to argue with that logic - as often as I try.

Tags: Panel, What is the Relationship Between Integral Psychotherapy and Transpersonal Psychotherapy?, Ray Greenleaf, Elliott Ingersoll, Janet Lewis, Andre Marquis, Joanne Rubin, Douglas Tatyryn, Jefferey Jessum, Roger Walsh, #itc2010, mind, Psychology, therapy, transpersonal, consciousness, psychotherapy, soul, Big Mind, 3-2-1 shadow work, Jung, Integral operating system, Ken Wilber