Friday, July 30, 2010

Douglas J. Tataryn, Ph.D. - Evolving Brains in Quadrants (EBIQ): The Three Dimensional Structure of AQAL - #itc2010

http://integralecology.org/integralresearchcenter/sites/default/files/images/integral-theory-conference.jpg

[Pre-lecture]: Now we are getting into my realm, the stuff that makes me excited - brain science and integral theory. I have some thoughts on Dan Siegel related to this talk - that I jotted down on the plane ride to Oakland - which I will share later.

Douglas J. Tataryn, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba: Evolving Brains in Quadrants (EBIQ): The Three Dimensional Structure of AQAL.

Wilber's integral theory posits five foundational constructs for understanding the whole of human existence: Quadrants, Levels, Lines, States and Types. My EBIQ theory expands on that work and posits that two constructs, the Triune Brain and Quadrants, placed in a temporal context, give rise to the four remaining dimensions of the AQAL model. This paper explicates that process for Levels and Lines of development, and provides a brief summary of how Types and States of consciousness emerge from this model. Mclean (1978) proposed that the human brain is composed of three distinct but highly interconnected brains which reflect our evolutionary past. Referring to these as the physical, emotional, and intellectual brains respectively, and watching over time, we see how the first six levels of Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi) emerge as each brain successively awakens to hold our primary sense-of-self and unfolds, first within the individual and then the collective quadrants. The potential for SDi stages Yellow and Turquoise occur when the sense-of-self transcends all of the brains and perceives their activity as objects, not self, within the individual and collective quadrants, respectively. All possible Lines of human development are circumscribed by examining the potentiality of each brain, at each level of development, within the individual and collective quadrants. For example, at SDi Orange, Intellectual, Rational, and Logical Lines of development emerge when the intellectual brain comes into prominence in an individual context. The Moral Line is a product of the emotional brain, in the collective context, beginning at SDi Amber and refined at Green and then Turquoise levels.

Dr. Tataryn received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology in 1991 from the University of Arizona, minoring in statistics and research methodology. He is presently in full-time private practice (clinical, research, life-coaching, corporate psychology) and is an adjunct professor with the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Manitoba. He was previously a research professor with the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, a clinical psychologist with the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Centre, and post-doctoral fellow of the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Dr. Tataryn's research and clinical focus has been on understanding the central role of emotional processes in psychological well-being and the development of chronic diseases. He is published in psychology, health services research, and research methodology. Dr. Tataryn is a long-time meditator (30+ years) and conducts seminars in areas such as the Bio-Emotive Integral Framework, integral theory, sports psychology, and the integration of psychology and spirituality.
[Post-lecture]: This is an interesting and somewhat disconcerting combination of Don Beck's SDi and Wilber's AQAL. He posits two 2nd tier stages and one 3rd tier stage (with two substages).

I really need to read the paper on this one - his use of the triune brain - physical (reptilian), emotional (mammalian), and intellectual (primate) - is very general and abstracted from actual brain structures and functions.

For example, how does this map onto Antonio Damasio's proto self, core self, autobiographical self?

My sense is that in the early stages, he has a pretty solid grasp of the generalizations - the first tier neuroscience stuff is possibly accurate, but because is views of 2nd tier and 3rd tier are hard to conceive of based on what I know of neuroscience - like I said, I need to read the paper.


Roger Walsh - The Ethics of Integral Living #itc2010

Roger Walsh is one of the rock stars of the integral community, author of many books, master of many subjects. His books on shamanism were seminal for me in introducing the topic to young people and his book on Essential Spirituality is excellent.

Here is the abstract (the paper was not posted on the ITC site):

Roger Walsh, MD, Ph.D., D.H.L, Faculty, University of California at Irvine: The Ethics of Integral Living.

Each of the world’s great religions regards ethical training as essential for anyone who would develop spiritual maturity, live wisely and well, and contribute effectively to others. As such, ethics is a central issue for integralists. Yet ethics is little understood in contemporary culture, conventional and post-conventional distinctions go unrecognized, and the painful results include moral confusion and culture wars. “Rare are those who understand virtue” sighed Confucius. This session will explore post-conventional ethical perspectives and practices. Prior to attending, participants are invited to reflect on the question, “What does it take to live without regrets?”

Roger Walsh is professor of psychiatry, philosophy, and anthropology, and adjunct professor of religious studies at the University of California at Irvine. His publications include the books Paths Beyond Ego: The Transpersonal Vision, The World of Shamanism, and Essential Spirituality: The Seven Central Practices.
There were maybe 10 people in the last presentation, which is unfortunate, but this one is packed, confirming his status in the community.

Roger gave a very interesting and useful talk. He's less about theory and intellectual stuff than he is about, "How do we do this, put it into practice." He did some cool experiential stuff, which really brough this home for me as a somaticly inclined person.

Some main points . . . .

Stages of ethical development:

Pre-conventional
Conventional - maintaining norms
Post-conventional - listening to one's own discernment
Trans-conventional - beyond ego, worldcentric
Nondual - kosmoscentric - Rumi:
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about."
"What we resist persists - and what we resist runs our lives." - This may be the best personal justification for facing shadow stuff and living an ethical life.
  • Ordinary people make a mistake, feel guilty, then repeat the mistakes.
  • Wise people make a mistake, learn from it, and do not repeat it.
Guilt is a stage-appropriate emotion in development, but not useful for adults.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but on the other hand, his definition of guilt is closer to mine of shame, and he does not like the "shame" word in that it is too often misused.

I'll have more on this later on, including practices for the Contemplative Ethics framework he outlines: Right speech, Right action, Right mind.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michelle Chase - Between Attack and Accommodation: Integrally Redefining “Devil’s Advocate” - #itc2010

http://integralecology.org/integralresearchcenter/sites/default/files/images/integral-theory-conference.jpg

Last night Sean mentioned we might want to seek out presentation by folks we may not know well - this is one of those hidden/unknown diamonds to whom he was referring. Michelle gave an excellent presentation on a very important topic.

Here is the abstract:
Michele Chase, Ph.D., John F. Kennedy University: Between Attack and Accommodation: Integrally Redefining “Devil’s Advocate.”

Examining the role of critique in Integral Land we find on one hand claims that idea exchange is harsh, pointed, and sometimes rude, and on the other serious charges that the community is cult-like, closed to true inquiry, and in need of dialectic and true critique. This presentation reviews textual forms of academic critique, applied to analysis of published and unpublished writing in the Integral Community. Possible
explanations for particular textual forms are offered, including developmental levels, and together we’ll engage in suggesting new textual forms for critique that would further inquiry and scholarship from an Integral perspective.

Michele Chase directs the MA in Holistic Health Education at JFKU. She applies her background in textual discourse analysis to studying communicative contexts in health promotion and in Integral Land. Her current project is a study of subtle energy-related words, metaphors, and meanings, especially related to perspectives on healing.
* * *

She began with the Wild Earp episode from Wilber - Was it a good idea to attack so provocatively his critics? Was this a form of integral critique? Or was it simply a temper tantrum? (My questions.)

She also identifies the reasons we might not be willing to be critical - including personality type, gender, stage, fear of "tearing down," etc.

Is there a relationship between level of development and how we critique?

Wilber says yes - crosstalk - failure to hear each other, especially in first tier.

Some of the Main Points:
  • She began her main point with it means to take a stand, to stand for something.
  • Truth claims - can you own your truths?
  • Taking a stand is solid, defensive or offensive.
  • Maybe we should take a stance, as in Tai Chi - more fluid, open.
  • Taking a stance transcends attack and defend, or even something happening.
  • We need a "community of we" where stances are examined and built upon, rather than criticized and destroyed.
  • Embrace our cognitive dissonance - it creates an opening for new ideas.
  • Embrace multiple levels/stages in integral culture - creates tension that generates growth, new ideas, other perspectives.
  • Integral inquiry is essentially a "we space."
I'll have much more to say on this presentation when I have time - Michelle offered me her notes from the presentation and has graciously allowed me to site from her paper (linked to above).

For now, I'm off to hear Roger Walsh.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Enacting an Integral Future - #itc2010

http://integralecology.org/integralresearchcenter/sites/default/files/images/integral-theory-conference.jpg

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

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

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

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

David Zeitler began the night's talk with his research on the attendees from the 2008 conference - and he had some interesting findings.
  • 47% of integral folks feel levels/stages/altitude is the most important element in integral theory
  • 90% feel examining our own beliefs is essential
  • 90% report having had a religious/spiritual/mystical experience - and that it changed their perspective on reality
  • 43% say they are into mysticism
  • 27% are panentheists
  • 12% are agnostic
  • 44% say that states is the most difficult concept to explain to colleagues
These stats are part of a larger project in defining the integral community - the who we are part of tonight's talk.

Mark Forman then offered the where are we going piece of the puzzle (which Sean amplified later).

He began with the four propositions essential in the relationship of integral to AQAL, a foundation upon which we can form distinctions and similarities.
  1. To be integral a theory must include states, stages, lines, quadrants, and types - not necessarily in those terms.
  2. It must be a metatheory, including epistemology, and it must be inclusive.
  3. Wilber does not equal AQAL - there can be different versions
  4. We need other versions of AQAL, as well as a map of its origins
Mark also gave a history of integral theory, using computer terms
Beta - the early integral theorists, such as Gebser, Aurobindo, and so on
1.0 - AQAL, 1995, publication of Sex Ecology Spirituality
2.0 - Coalescence and application
2.5 - Differentiation, diversity, research
3.0 - Integration - a mature field of integral academics
He pointed out, rightly, that the academic world does not trust singular figures and their theories - they want a tradition, a lineage of thought and development.

Part of how that happens is through differentiating from Wilber, and doing so in the 5 areas identified by Edwards.
  • Evidence - where Wilber gets it wrong (such as evolution)
  • Interpretation -the ways Wilber may have misused or misunderstood sources (like Gebser)
  • Application & emphasis - the ways in which Wilber may wrongly apply the AQAL model
Those first three are the easy ones. The next two? Not so easy.
  • Method - how did Wilber come up with this model, can it be reproduced?
  • Framework - Perhaps integral will differentiate from AQAL itself?
Mark (following Sean's work) identified a few problems with differentiating from Wilber.
Volume problem - Sean estimates 10,000 pages of published material by Wilber, and 10,000 more pages of published work that can be identified as Wilberian
Range of Applications - AQAL is user friendly, most obviously in the ILP/ITP models, but Sean estimates 35 fields using AQAL as a model
Meta-method Creation - Can it be falsified? Edwards says no. What was the method of generating this structure? Can we create a meta-method of integral investigation?
Mark argues that we need to see Wilber as part of a lineage of integral thinkers and theorists, not as the singular figure of integral theory - I am in complete agreement with this. For me, personally, the cult of Wilber, as some have called it, disturbs me intellectually and intuitively. As long as so many people still see Wilber = Integral = AQAL, with no distinctions, the "integral movement" will remain small and insular.

In that regard, this conference and future conferences are crucial. And the more we can create, as a community, an integral theory that - in my opinion - transcends and includes Wilber and Wilberian integral theory, the better chance of integral theory becoming an integral philosophy.

Finally, Mark introduced us to a new figure in integral theory, from the early 20th century - someone most of us, including myself, have not seen mentioned before - Pitirim A. Sorokin, founder of Harvard's Sociology Department in 1933.

He called his own method an integralist theory:
Integralist Method

Pitirim A. SorokinA most excellent statement of the method used by Sorokin in what he calls his "Integralist Sociology" is to be found in his Sociocultural Causality, Space and Time. There he envisions for the social sciences a method that is at once intuitional, rational, and empirical—all three—and therefore, in his own terms, an integralist method.

It is intuitional, in his words, "first of all, for the reason that some kind of intuition is at the very basis of the validity of the systems of truth of reason and of the senses" or because, in other words, real cognition is creation, not a mere anticipation or reflection of nature in the empiricist sense. It is intuitional, secondly, "because intuition . . . has been one of the most important and fruitful 'starters' of an enormous number of the most im­portant scientific, mathematical and philosophical discoveries and technological inventions"; thirdly, "because a variety of religious and aesthetic intuition has been the main source and the main force for the creation of the greatest artistic, religious, and ethical systems of culture"; and fourth, "because there is a sufficiently large body of the testimonies of the great thinkers, creators of religion, of art values, of science, demonstrating the reality, the functioning and the power of this source of truth" (Social and Cultural Dynamics vol. IV, pp. 747-764).

This links closely with the idea that there is "superrational" and "supersensory" aspect of man and society and that reason and the senses, needful though they are, are not completely adequate to understand and to know this aspect of reality. This supersensory, and superrational "phase of sociocultural reality, in­cluding man himself, must be apprehended through a supersensory, superrational, metalogical act of 'in­tuition' or 'mystic experience', representing a type of cognition 'sui generis', profoundly different from sensory perception and the logical activity of reason" (Sociocultural Causality, p. 228).

I look forward to exploring more of his work.

Sean wrapped up the evening with "enacting an integral future," the theme of the conference this year. He highlighted the expansion of integral theory into academic worlds, with 5 or 6 schools offering integral models in their programs, if not outright degrees (and he didn't even mention Fielding Graduate Institute, who had several students speaking in 2008 - wonder what's up with that?).

Further, there is now the SUNY integral studies book imprint, with 4 books this year, 8 in the each of the next two years. In addition, there are several excellent journals, including JITP, Integral Review, Integral Leadership Review, and so on.

There is also some great research under way, with 25 or 30 PhDs in the pipeline, as well as Terri O'Fallon's work with states and stages at Pacific Integral and Zeitler's work at JFKU.

Sean finished up the evening by offering a Wilber-based integral theory rather than a Wilber-centric model or a Wilber-Neutral model (my preference). This view would offer . . .
Integral Theory = Wilber's work + Integral lineage + Contemporary theorists
I guess I'm cool with that - there is no way to ignore or discount Wilber's work - it's foundational.

In my mind, we need to do the detail work, test his hypotheses (which is all much of this is until it can be verified or falsified - if it can't be falsified, it's not useful), create working models in the trenches - it was Wilber himself who said he was offering the view from 50,000 ft (or whatever the number was) and it would be up to graduate students to put that view to the test at ground level.

Tonight's lecture was a good opening to what looks to me a great conference.


Integral Theory Conference Sessions to be Blogged #itc2010

http://integralecology.org/integralresearchcenter/sites/default/files/images/integral-theory-conference.jpg

The following is the tentative schedule of conference sessions I will be attending and blogging - most of these were selected by Sean and Mark to highlight what they feel to be some of the more interesting or important presentations.

Friday afternoon I am on the Integral Masculinity panel, so John Wagnon will be blogging the Key Criticisms of Wilber's Work panel, which features Frank Visser, Jeff Meyerhoff, Zak Stein, Sara Ross, Markus Molz, and Ray Greenleaf.

If any readers are also attendees, and you have something to share, drop me an email, a Facebook message, or just pull me aside at the conference - and PLEASE, if anyone is taking photos, and would like to share them, send me some jpegs to post here. I forgot my camera, not that I could have actually figured out which box it is in after the move this past weekend.

Lastly and most importantly, my sincerest thanks to Sean and Mark for putting this event together, and for taking a chance on having me blog it. I've already caused them some serious headaches and the conference has not yet official started.

Thursday Evening, 6:00-7:30
Opening Ceremony

Friday:
9:00-10:30 - Michele Chase: Between Attack and Accommodation: Integrally Redefining "Devil's Advocate"
11:00-12:30 - Roger Walsh: The Ethics of Integral Living
2:00-3:00 - TBA, Daniel O'Connor is unable to attend
3:30-5:30 - Panel: Key Criticisms of Wilber's Work: What Is the Achilles Heel of Integral Theory: Frank Visser, Jeff Meyerhoff, Zak Stein, Sara Ross, Markus Molz, Ray Greenleaf [Blogged by John Wagnon]
3:30-5:30 - Panel: Intergal Masculinity: Are David Deida's and Warren Farrell's Visions of Masculinity "Integral?": Mark Forman, Bert Parlee, William Harryman, Luke Fullager, Pelle Billing, Diane Hamilton, Gilles Herrada
7:45-9:00 - Keynote Presentation: Robert Kegan, Professor, Harvard University

Saturday:
9:00-10:30 - Bonita Roy: AQAL 2210: A Tentative Cartology of the Future; Or How Do We Get from AQAL to A-perspectival?
11:00-12:30 - Zachary Stein & Katie Heikkinen: Developmental Differences in the Understanding of Integral Theory and Practice: Preliminary Results from the iTEACH Project
2:00-3:00 - William Varey: Health In, Of and For: The Ethics of Delineating ‘Health’ and ‘Unhealth’
3:30-5:30 - 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

I hope to have a chance to visit the poster session Saturday night, and will try to mention some of the more interesting work. I will also post a list of the conference award winners.

Sunday:
9:00-10:30 - Terri O'Fallon: Collapsing the Wilber-Combs Matrix
11:00-1:00 - Panel: Development and Ethics: Katie Heikinnen, Zak Stein, Elliott Ingersoll, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Roger Walsh


It's a Beautiful day in the East Bay, #itc2010

http://image.pegs.com/content/H/H1F/H1FR/H1FR3/HH1070759_Ext1_j.jpg

Wow, I had nearly forgotten what an 80 degree day without humidity and gray skies feels like - and TREES! Real, honest to god trees, with leaves and everything.

Anyway, I feel I should post a warning to all of those I will meet in the coming days - I am an introvert, with social anxiety - doesn't get much worse than that. I look forward to meeting all of you, or at least those who know me, vaguely, from the blogs and from Facebook.

The other thing is that I am ADD, which makes me bad with names, bad with numbers, and I have a tendency to think faster than my mouth can talk . . . either that, or, well . . . I'm sticking with that.

I have changed my image here and at Facebook to a photo of me from a couple of years ago - I still kinda look like that, with a bit more hair. Please say "Hi!" if you see me - I'm not likely to recognize many of you in person until I see you a couple of times.


On My Way to California #itc2010

I'm in Phoenix right now, waiting for my flight to Oakland to board. Free wi-fi is the bomb (do people still say that?).

I'm excited to be attending this second biannual Integral Theory Conference. I wanted to attend the first one but that year I had been to Washington DC for the Psychotherapy Networker conference and then went to Chicago for the Integral Family Systems conference. Money does not grow on trees, unfortunately.

A couple of notes - I will be posting as much and as often as possible - maybe even while a session is occurring.

I will use the #itc2010 hashtag in all titles - this is so that people can easily find the posts on Twitter.

Most of my stuff ends up at Facebook, when Facebook works as it is supposed to work.

My friend John Wagnon, a very knowledgeable person when it comes to integral theory, will be guest posting here during the conference - especially on the panel of Integral Criticism.

I look forward to meeting many of you who I have only known on the internet. This will be fun. Gotta go - the plane is loading.


Deconstruction and Excision in Philosophical Posthumanism

Seriously geeky . . . .

Deconstruction and Excision in Philosophical Posthumanism

David Roden

davidroden7@googlemail.com

Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 21 Issue 1 – June 2010 - pgs 27 - 36

http://jetpress.org/v21/roden.htm

Abstract

I distinguish the ethics of transhumanism from a related metaphysical position which I refer to as “speculative posthumanism.” Speculative posthumanism holds that posthumans might be radically non-human and thus unintelligible in human terms. I claim that this transcendence can be viewed as analogous to that of the thing-in-itself in Kantian and post-Kantian European philosophy. This schema implies an impasse for transhumanism because, while the radically non-human or posthuman would elude evaluation according to transhumanist principles such as personal autonomy or liberal freedom, it is morally unacceptable for transhumanists to discount the possible outcomes of their favoured policies. I then consider whether the insights of critical posthumanists, who employ a cyborg perspective on human-technology couplings, can dissolve this impasse by “deconstructing” the opposition between the human and its prospective posthuman successors. By exhibiting its logical basis in the postructuralist philosophies of Derrida and Deleuze, I show that the cyborg perspective is consistent with both cyborg humanism and a modified speculative posthumanism. This modified account treats the alterity of the posthuman as a historically emergent feature of human and posthuman multiplicities that must be understood through their technical or imaginative synthesis, not in relation to a transcendental conception of the human.

Contemporary transhumanists argue that human nature can and should be altered through technological means where such enhancements are likely to lead to the majority of individuals leading better lives. This ethic is premised on prospective developments in Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, and Cognitive Science – the so-called “NBIC” suite. One of the areas of particular concern for transhumanists is the use of such technologies to enhance human cognitive functions such as learning, memory, and attention. For example, such pharmacological agents as Modafinil are currently used to enhance learning and working memory. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of areas of neural tissue may, one day, be routinely employed to increase the neural plasticity associated with learning and memorization (Bostrom and Sandberg 2006). More speculatively, micro-electric neuroprostheses might interface the brain directly with non-biological cognitive or robotic systems (Kurzweil 2005, 317).1 Such developments could bring the day when all humans will be more intellectually capable, whether because of enhancements of their native biological machinery or through interfacing with artificial information processing systems.

However, some transhumanists such as Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec argue that a convergence of NBIC technologies will not only enhance human intelligence, but give rise to beings with superhuman intellectual capacities. Since designing intelligence is, itself, a feat of intelligence, a super-intelligence could design a still more super intelligence, and so on through an unbounded series of recursive improvements. Beyond this threshold, there would be an exponentially fast change in the level and quality of mentation. Vinge refers to this point as “the technological singularity,” claiming that such a singularity could occur with the creation of a single super-intelligent machine (Vinge 1993; Bostrom 2005, 8). Vinge is sensibly agnostic about the precipitating causes of such a singularity: the super-intelligence in question might result from some targeted biological alteration in human beings, from the use of “human/computer interfaces” of the kind anticipated by Kurzweil, or from an emergent property of large information systems (Vinge 1993).

Since such a situation is unprecedented, the best we can do to understand the post-singularity dispensation, Vinge claims, is to draw parallels with the emergence of an earlier transformative intelligence: And what happens a month or two (or a day or two) after that? I have only analogies to point to: The rise of humankind (Vinge 1993). If this analogy between the emergence of the human and the emergence of the posthuman holds, we could no more expect to understand a post-singularity entity than a rat or non-human primate – lacking the capacity for refined propositional attitudes – could be expected to understand such human conceptions as justice, number theory, and public transportation.

Vinges position nicely exemplifies a generic philosophy of the posthuman that I will refer to as “speculative posthumanism.” Speculative posthumanists claim that descendants of current humans could cease to be human by virtue of a history of technical alteration. The notion of descent is “wide” insofar as the entities that might qualify could include our biological descendants or beings resulting from purely technological activities (e.g., artificial intelligences, synthetic life-forms, or uploaded minds).

Speculative posthumanism claims that an augmentation history of this kind is metaphysically and technically possible. It does not imply that the posthuman would improve upon the human state or that there would exist a scale of values by which the human and posthuman lives could be compared. If radically posthuman lives were very non-human indeed, we could not assume they would be prospectively evaluable. For example, Vinge suggests that a super-intelligent machine might lack awareness of itself as a persistent subject of experience. For a modern tradition exemplified in the transcendental philosophy of Kant and later phenomenological philosophers, this possibility is problematic. For Kant, this is because the subject is not a bare locus of identity but has a transcendental function of synthesizing or unifying sensory information given under the subjective forms of space and time into experiences of a common, objective world.

However, Kant allowed that there could be thinkers whose mental life does not entail the synthesis of sensory representations. In the Critique of Pure Reason, he speculates about non-sensory intellectual intuition that produces objects rather than, as in humans, imposing a synthetic unity on their sensory affects (Kant 1787, B 307). A being with intellectual intuition could have unmediated knowledge of things as they are-in-themselves (noumena) rather than as represented under the sensory forms of space and time (phenomena).

If Kant is right, then the presence of first-person subjectivity in humans does not preclude a radically non-subjective phenomenology in non-humans. Most of Kants successors in the idealist and phenomenological traditions have rejected both the in-itself and the possibility of intellectual intuition, claiming that a thing is nothing other than an object for a possible subject. Subject and object would then be indissociably related (Meillassoux 2006). Correlationism, as the philosopher Quentin Meillassoux christens this position, has dominated post-Kantian European philosophy, morphing into a slew of postmodern idealisms. However, as Meillassoux argues, correlationism has the absurd consequence that the cosmic emergence of subjectivity or language becomes inconceivable; for, since nothing exists outside the correlation, it has no history. If we reject correlationism, however, we must hold that reality is not exhausted by any system of correlations: the unconditioned thing-in-itself must be admitted and so must the possibility of different modes of access to it. Thus even if our way of accessing the real requires a subject, others may not. Given this minimal realism, Vinges speculations about posthuman non-subjective intelligence are conceptually coherent, irrespective of their technical possibility.

It seems, then, that a posthuman reality could be, as Vinge (1993) avers, “too different to fit into the classical frame of good and evil.” Our public ethical frameworks arguably presuppose that candidates for our moral regard have phenomenologies similar to humans, if only in the sentient capacities for pain, fear, or enjoyment. Moral conceptions such as autonomy or responsibility would be inapplicable to a subjectless posthuman. The central value that modern liberal theory places on liberty and democratic legitimacy would be likewise unintelligible.

How should transhumanists respond to this possibility? Should they simply discount it, confining their attention to the evaluable outcomes of transhumanist intervention? Discounting the posthuman is morally irresponsible, though, given the possible role of transhumanist intervention in producing it. Thus transhumanists should try to evaluate the emergence of an incommensurate posthuman alterity. However, if we recognize evaluation as a non-starter, any attempt to do so would be incoherent. Thus it appears that transhumanists are morally obliged to evaluate the unevaluable. We can refer to this impossible demand as the “posthuman impasse.”

However, this formulation of a transhumanist aporia invites a critical riposte from a position distinct from speculative posthumanism or transhumanism: critical posthumanism.
Read the whole thing.


Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Parabola - JUNG’S RED BOOK: Life After Depth

Cool - I still want to get a copy of the book, but it'll have to wait for now. This excellent article comes from Parabola.

JUNG’S RED BOOK: Life After Depth

dunne
Abraxas, © Jorge M Machado

JUNG’S RED BOOK: Life After Depth

By Claire Dunne

The knowledge of death came to me that night….I went into the inner death and saw that outer dying is better than inner death. And I decided to die outside and live within….I turned away and sought the place of the inner life! —C.G. Jung, The Red Book

The Red Book, an epic chapter in the life of C.G. Jung, is now available to us fifty-eight years after his death. This fabled volume bound in red leather, which Jung initially called Liber Novus (New Book), echoes a medieval manuscript in its calligraphic text and richly toned symbolic paintings. It reveals a process that was primal in its energies and labyrinthine in its journey, one that became the genesis of his psychology. "The numinous beginning that contained everything", he wrote of it in 1957, four years before he died.

Cary Baynes, a former patient who was asked by Jung to transcribe the text, called it a "record of the passage of the universe through the soul of a man." It records the search, experiences, and initial findings of a man who at age forty had, by his own account "achieved honor, power, wealth, knowledge and every human happiness," yet had somehow lost his soul.

"Meine seele, meine seele, wo bist du?" "My soul, my soul, where are you?" Jung writes in the Black Book series that preceded and was elaborated upon in The Red Book. In his introduction to The Red Book, editor and translator Sonu Shamdasani, a London-based historian of psychology and psychiatry, sets this potent work within the context of Jung’s time and life.

It began in 1913, the year Jung broke with Freud. Inner experiences were drawing Jung into a way of being not primarily dependent on intellect. There were dreams he didn’t understand and then a repeated and dramatic sign–a daylight vision of horrific floods, Europe devastated, rivers of blood, and an inner voice that said: "It will come to pass."

"I thought my mind had gone crazy," wrote Jung. He undertook a psychological self-examination but became stuck. To tap into underlying material, he devised a "boring method" that evolved into "active imagination," which was to become a keystone of his psychology as a means of accessing and penetrating fantasy. From late 1913 to mid-1914, he recorded a relentless avalanche of inner openings, images, and dialogue, material to be worked on as Jung’s "most difficult experiment."

Often these experiences occurred at night in his library, following a day’s work with patients and dinner with family. He sometimes did yoga-type exercises to quell emotional turmoil and empty his consciousness. He then went into the spontaneous fantasies that appeared, as if entering a drama, engaging in conversations with its characters. But he remained uncertain of the meaning and significance of their content. Mental illness was a recurring fear.

"Finally I understood," he wrote in 1914, after the outbreak of World War I. His early symbolic pre-cognitions had been given terrible form. Understanding gave Jung the courage to begin a handwritten draft of his Liber Novus. He transcribed the Black Book material, adding further interpretations of each episode, and often combining these with a lyrical elaboration.

Here are some snapshot impressions of the book that may yield the skeleton of its content. Inner battles take place. In the prophetic opening the Spirit of the Depths spars with the Spirit of the Times in him. The contemporary and changing thinking of Time constantly has to give way to the immemorial and shaping future contained in, and arising from, the Depths.

A spiritual message emerges, a new way for the time we live in today, with Jung becoming the task, interpreter, and bearer of it. The teaching is of a new God image–an immanent God who is in everything big and small, dark and light. The paradox in this holds that "the highest truth and the absurd is one and the same thing." Moreover, "the melting together of sense and nonsense produces the supreme meaning"; and "if you marry the ordered to the chaos you produce the divine child." The task is to hold the opposites together, "the goal is not the heights but the center"–the center or Self which can be said as "God in us."

Jung came to believe that "You should be…not Christians but Christ, otherwise you will be of no use to the coming God." He realised he needed to live all of life in him, God spirit and human animal, together in unity.

In Jung’s personal journey his feminine Soul voice battles with him to recognize and balance his own opposites. There is a peeling back of distrust, scorn, judgment, pride, defiance, doubt, confusion, rage, and fear. The need to develop patience—a waiting, enduring, receiving mode as the feminine (or anima) within—is put to him. He discovers that thinking and feeling need each other.

Jung has to face what least he wants to—symbolised as desert, hell, murder, and more, till "nothing human is alien to me." Opposites, he realises, are brothers: "the other is also in you." Soul counsels acceptance of solitude, the inner loneliness of knowing, uncertainty of path or goal, and fear and possibility of madness as part of his journey. "I believed…soul knows her own way….perhaps no one will gain insight from my work. But my soul demands this achievement….I should be able to do this just for myself, without hope–for the sake of God."

Jung carves his own path, insisting "my path is not your path" and, "to live oneself is to be one’s own task." The fantasies deepen in a spiraling journey of recurring, evolving patterns. The horror and the positive aspects of collective human history unfold before him. Soul insists he accept it all. "I feel the things that were and that will be". He initially recoils at the enormous task ahead. "Futurity grows out of me; I do not create it, and yet I do."

A transformative image of black snake appears, winding up, becoming white, and emerging through the mouth of the crucified Christ.

"To give birth to the ancient in a new time is creation," he writes.

"We need it [magic]… to find the way that we are unable to conceive." Looking for inner help, Jung is "apprenticed" to Philemon, a "guru" figure that first appears in dream as a winged man bearing four keys, and then as the archetypal Magician. From him, Jung learns about objective reality beyond the personal. He risks the letting-go that is needed to bring together powers that conflict in the soul of man into a true marriage. Reason and understanding must unite with unreason and magic. Unity brings an apparent standstill that is "the forbearing life of eternity, the life of divinity." Yet his inner guidance reveals that the personal "life has yet to begin." This section ends with: "the touchstone is being alone with yourself. This is the way."

Another section opens with a devastating self-criticism of the "shadow" side of his state. "If I tame you, beast, I give others the opportunity to tame their beasts." Jung is encouraged by Soul to "be unwavering and create" while a haggard male inner image tells him, "you must bleed for the goal of humanity." As World War I savages on, Jung asks his Soul: "Which depths do you require me to advance to?" The answer "Forever above yourself and the present."

For nearly a year, the voices of the depths fall silent. Jung writes a draft of his Liber Novus. Then the voice of Philemon returns. "Self-willing is not for you. You are the will of the whole….Draw nearer, enter into the grave of God. The place of your work should be in the vault."

The dead appear to his inner vision and Soul declares "The dead demand your expiatory prayers." Jung reluctantly accepts. Soul announces that the "the ruler of this world" demands the sacrifice of Jung’s fear because he has "been summoned to serve him." "Why must it be me?" protests Jung. "I cannot. I don’t want to."

"You possess the word that should not be allowed to remain concealed," declares his Soul.

Philemon, who Jung had felt as "the presence of the good and the beautiful," now appears in priestly robes and gives "Seven Sermons to the Dead," a kind of Gnostic creation myth, including humanity’s role in it.

From Pleroma, unmanifest, infinite, eternal, in which "there is nothing and everything,, arises differentiated levels of Creation that are permeated with Pleroma. Pairs of opposites, which are balanced and void in Pleroma, appear as separate in created beings, eg., good and evil, sameness and difference. The striving at bottom is for "your own essence" as being.

Everything "created and uncreated" is Pleroma itself, the totality of being. The first manifestation devolving from Pleroma is Abraxas, a god forgotten by mankind, whose state of being is "effect," a paradoxical "improbable probability and unreal reality." It is "force, duration, change" at once. The next level of manifestation is more definite. God is creation. God is in essence "effective fullness" while Satan, his opposite, is in essence "effective emptiness."

Then there is a multiplicity of gods that act as either heavenly gods that "magnify," or earthly gods that "diminish," the four principal ones being Sun God, Eros, Tree of Life, and Devil. Spirituality and sexuality, "daimon manifestations of the gods," are opposites of the same spectrum, celestial in spirituality, earthly in sexuality. Man and woman "stand under the law" of both in differing ways.

In the last of the "Seven Sermons," Philemon reveals that man "is a gateway through which you pass from the outer world of Gods, daimons, and souls into the inner world; out of the greater into the smaller world." In this world "man is Abraxas, the creator and destroyer of his own world," who has a star as his own "guiding God."

Much later, Jung told a colleague that the "Seven Sermons to the Dead" were a prelude of what he had to communicate to the world. They are the skeletal nucleus of Jung’s psychology including individuation, the conflict of opposites, and the co-creation of man with the godhead.

Yet, the journey of The Red Book continued on. Philemon had a further teaching about man: "You, being, are the eternal moment." Death as shade, and celestial mother in mantle of stars, also appear, requiring further sacrifice from Jung before he can give birth to his stellar child. Jung realizes that "only fidelity to love and voluntary devotion" lead to "my stellar nature, my truest and most innermost self, that simply and singly is."

Finally, a shade (Christ) enters. Philemon kneels to "my master and my brother," telling Christ "your work is incomplete" while man merely imitates his life. "The time has come when each must do his own work of redemption."

By the end, clear lines are drawn between personal Jung and the inner beings that have appeared throughout, including Elijah, Salome, and earth spirit Ka, in addition to Philemon. There is a final tussle with Soul as Jung refuses unconditional obedience to the gods. He insists that man is no longer "slave" to them, though "They may devise a service in return." After initial outrage the gods agree. Soul tells Jung: "You have broken the compulsion of the law." Christ (as shade) offers a final word as gift. In accepting light and dark together: "I bring you the beauty of suffering."

In 1916, while on military duty, a series of twenty-seven mandala images came to Jung. The first depicts a multilevel relationship of microcosm with macrocosm. Abraxas, "lord of the physical world," is at the bottom; Phanes, golden winged "divine child," is at top. Over time Jung transcribed his work into calligraphic form on parchment, illustrated the text, painted dramatic symbolic images of his journey and inserted it all into a six-hundred-page folio bound in red leather.

Patients recall seeing it, open, on an easel in his library. Jung counseled them to create their own kind of Red Book as a method of dealing with their particular inner processes. Christiana Morgan recalls Jung saying "You can go to the book, turn over the pages and for you it will be your church–your cathedral–the silent places of your spirit where you will find renewal….for in that book is your soul."

He stopped work on The Red Book in 1930 when the impact of a Chinese alchemical text, The Secret of the Golden Flower, brought him "undreamed of confirmation" of his ideas, and the link between East and West. In 1959, a single handwritten page was added to the book by Jung, reaffirming its contents: "I always knew those experiences contained something precious." It ends in mid-sentence.

The Red Book continues to offer us profound insight into the processes of life, into Jung and his work, and into the need to honor our own inner lives in our own way.

The Red Book is published by W.W. Norton at a list price of $195.00.


TED Global 2010 - The Connectome: Do neural maps define our identity?

Interesting talk - I'd like to be able to see it and not just read about it. Sebastian Seung is a Professor of Computational Neuroscience at MIT and Investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

He has posted many of his articles, if not most, on his site as PDFs, which is very cool. I'll include one article relevant to this talk at the bottom. This article comes from Wired UK.

By Duncan Geere |16 July 2010

The connectome: do neural maps define our identity?

"I am my connectome" intones the audience in the Player's Theatre in Oxford at TEDGlobal 2010, under the orders of computational neuroscientist Sebastian Seung. "But you don't even know what a connectome is yet!" smirks Seung, before embarking on a precise, detailed explanation about what might be at the root of identity.

The connectome is a map. It's a map of the neurons in your brain and how they interact with each other -- which are connected, where, and how strongly. Some neuroscientists believe that it's this map that defines who we are -- associating memories with other things in your brain, in the same way that a smell of baking can conjure up an image of your kitchen.

Mapping those connections could give us the best chance yet at discovering how brains work, how memories are stored and accessed, and perhaps even changing them without causing irreparable damage. But it's a daunting task. Your neurons are tangled together tighter than headphone cables after a week in your desk drawer, and it's thought that there are millions of miles that need unravelling -- as task far behind current computational capabilities.

"How could we even dare to think we might understand this?" asks Seung. "It's the work of generations." So he and his colleagues are starting small, focusing on getting tiny, partial bits of the whole map, colouring them different shades in what is wonderfully called a "Brainbow". Even these small sections could contain valuable data on memories.

A sequence of muscle actions, like playing a series of notes on a piano, should represent itself as a series of connections between a pair of neurons that fire in turn. If those can be located, then the memory of what order the notes should be played in will be found, and could potentially be modified.

But, as someone ending a relationship might say, "people change". And their connectomes change, too. Over time, neurons will lose branches, grow new ones and twist into new and different shapes. Experiences, memories and emotions will shape your connectome, creating new links and causing old ones to die.

"The metaphor I like to use is a 'stream of consciousness'", says Seung. "The connectome is the bed of the stream, and your neural activity is the water. In daily use, the water flows along the stream bed, but over time, it forges new channels and twists the streambed into a new shape, leaving oxbow lakes and derelic,t backwaters behind it."

Seung ended his talk with a brief detour into the world of cryonics, raising the question of whether it would successfully preserve the connectome. There's evidence that the connectome disappears rapidly after death, and if that's true then cryonics would need to be fast, or it'd be impossible to resurrect someone with their memories and personality intact.

The only way to be sure would be to defrost someone, extract their brain, and see if the connectome is intact. Given we still aren't anywhere close to mapping a human connectome yet, it's going to be a while until we can find out.

Photo Credit: Flickr CC: Mike Blogs
Here is a related article dealing with connectomes. Be warned, this is geeky science stuff.
Reading the Book of Memory: Sparse Sampling versus Dense Mapping of Connectomes

By H. Sebastian Seung


Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Correspondence: seung@mit.edu

Neuron 62, 17-29 (2009)
DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.020

Many theories of neural networks assume rules of connection between pairs of neurons that are based on their cell types or functional properties. It is finally becoming feasible to test such pairwise models of connectivity, due to emerging advances in neuroanatomical techniques. One method will be to measure the functional properties of connected pairs of neurons, sparsely sampling pairs from many specimens. Another method will be to find a ‘‘connectome,’’ a dense map of all connections in a single specimen, and infer functional properties of neurons through computational analysis. For the latter method, the most exciting prospect would be to decode the memories that are hypothesized to be stored in connectomes.

In constructing a neural network model of brain function, it is standard to start from a mathematical description of spiking and synaptic transmission, make assumptions about how neurons are connected by synapses and then numerically simulate or analytically derive the activity patterns of the network. Success is declared if the model’s activity patterns reproduce those measured by neurophysiologists.

Initially, the model neurons used in such networks were highly simplified to the point of being naive. But they have become more sophisticated over the years, incorporating findings about intrinsic and synaptic currents in neurons. In contrast, many assumptions about neural connectivity have been used by theorists for decades without revision, because they have been difficult to test empirically.

It has been popular to assume that the connectivity between any pair of neurons is a function of variables associated with the neurons. These variables, which I dub cell labels, are attributes of a neuron that can be measured without determining its connectivity directly. The cell label can include what neuroanatomists call cell type, which is defined classically by shape and location (Bota et al., 2003; Masland, 2004). In the retina, photoreceptors make connections onto horizontal cells, a rule of connectivity based on cell type (Masland, 2001b). A cell label could also include some property that is determined by a neurophysiologist through activity measurements. For example, some models of the primary visual cortex assume that excitatory neurons with similar preferred orientations are connected (Somers et al., 1995; Ben-Yishai et al., 1995), so that the cell label is preferred orientation.

For testing such a pairwise model of neural connectivity, two standard neuroanatomical methods are available. Sparse reconstruction relies on light microscopy and sparse labeling of neurons, and dense reconstruction relies on electron microscopy and dense labeling. Both methods have been problematic. Axons can be less than 100 nm in diameter (Shepherd and Harris, 1998), and dendritic spine necks can be even narrower (Fiala and Harris, 1999). Since 100 nm is less than the wavelength of visible light, these structures cannot be resolved with a light microscope if they are entangled in a densely stained neuropil (but see Hell [2007] for exceptions to this rule). However, one can see a single neuron stained with dye, as long as the surrounding neurons are unstained and hence remain invisible. This trick was employed by Golgi, who invented a stain that marked a sparse subset of neurons in the brain.

Cajal used Golgi’s stain to reconstruct the branching patterns of neurons. If two neurons made contact with each other, Cajal inferred that they were connected. However, he could not rigorously prove this inference, because he could not see synapses. Contact suggests that a connection exists, but a synapse must be identified to prove it. In short, connection = contact + synapse.

In the 1970s, neuroanatomists began to use electron microscopy for dense reconstruction of neurons. In principle, this imaging method has enough spatial resolution to see all of the axons and dendrites in a densely labeled neuropil. It is also possible to identify synapses through telltale markers such as vesicles. Most famously, electron microscopy was used to map every connection in the nervous system of the nematode C. elegans (White et al., 1986). For every synapse between two neurites, the presynaptic and postsynaptic neurons were identified by tracing the neurites back to their parent cell bodies.
Read the whole article.

Upaya Dharma Podcasts - Mindsight: The Psychology and Neuroscience of Awareness (Pts 5 and 6 of 9)

The excellence continues . . .

Dan's most recent books are Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation (for general readers) and The Mindful Therapist: A Clinician's Guide to Mindsight and Neural Integration (more scientific).

Mindsight: The Psychology and Neuroscience of Awareness (Pt 5 of 9)

Speakers: Roshi Joan Halifax & Dan Siegel
Recorded: Friday Jul 9, 2010

Roshi Joan begins the evening by reading a poem by Lisel Mueller. Dan Siegal then tells a story that affected his life and the development of Mindsight. Dan introduces a list of 9 functions that integrates the cortex, limbic area, brain stem, the body and the social world. The list includes regulating the body, attuning to other people, emotional balance, response flexibility, fear modulation, mental time travel, empathy, morality and intuition.

* * * * *

Mindsight: The Psychology and Neuroscience of Awareness (Pt 6 of 9)

Speakers: Roshi Joan Halifax & Dan Siegel
Recorded: Saturday Jul 10, 2010

How do we make this world of a better place? Dan says that we need to understand relationships, but also need to understand the nervous system. Through this, it changes what we do with our attention. Empathy can be stimulated by focused attention. How we focus our attention harnesses something that changes synaptic connections, improves immune functions and changes epigenetic control of gene expression. Dan introduces the concept of the Eight Domains of Integration, and explains for first 3, which are Consciousness, Horizontal and Vertical integration.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Why Is Marc Gafni Featured in 3 Sessions at the 2010 Integral Theory Conference? #itc2010 [Comments Reopened]

[8-8-2010 - comments are now reopened - Additional thoughts added at the bottom]

* * * * *

[UPDATE 2:
The conference organizers have asked that this thread be closed at this point. They do so from the perspective that representatives from both sides of a controversial issue have been able to express their views, which they feel is important. And from the perspective that there are more appropriate places for these perspectives to continue to air their differences. This request was made by them out of a commitment to keep the energy of the conference focused on the development of academic discourse.]

I agree and am cool with this - we can take it up at later date in a less adversarial forum.

[UPDATE: I have been asked by conference organizers to remove the link to and quotes from Marc's paper - it was never intended for publication or public use. Marc owns copyright and without his permission, posting it is a violation of trust.
I apologize for not checking with organizers about this before resharing the link. I have also been asked to include the letter of support from Sally Kempton and Ken Wilber - it is in the comments.

MY STANCE: I do not want the conference to be overshadowed by this issue. I stand by my criticisms, but there are many wonderful presenters and people at this conference. Let's have fun and enjoy the learning.

Following the conference, we can take this topic up again, and perhaps do so in a more compassionate way - I was wrong to make this the first post on the conference.

I would to like to return our focus to sharing and learning. Thank you for your passion about this, and your understanding.]


As many readers may already know, I am the official blogger for the 2010 Integral Theory Conference this weekend at JFK University. Although the conference does not begin officially until Friday, I am beginning my blogging efforts today.

Having looked at the schedule pretty closely to see what I will be missing as I blog the events Mark and Sean want to highlight, I noticed that Marc Gafni will be speaking in three separate sessions (one of his own), but there was no paper posted in the list of presenters. I figured he may not have submitted a paper, or it had not been received yet.

What I didn't figure was that he had submitted a paper, and that it is horribly written (not the slightest bit of editing), and that far from academic, it is little more than a self-justification (in his own mind) for his history of sexually inappropriate relationships with students.

An anonymous reader of this blog left a comment on an earlier post about the conference and provided me a link to the article (which has subsequently been removed from the ITC site - and with good reason).

Here is the comment that was left, with the original PDF link to Gafni's article (removed) (because this was left as a public comment on the blog and not sent as a personal email, I am assuming I can repost it here) - nothing ever disappears completely in cyberspace:
I’m curious if you’ve had a chance to read the paper Marc Gafni submitted for the conference, entitled “Spiritually Incorrect: Sex, Ethics and Injury.” Rather than a clear, academic presentation of Integral theory, it’s 32 pages of rambling self-justification for his sexually abusive behaviors, attacks on the women who spoke up against him, distortions of Kabbalistic teachings presented as means to defend himself, and quotes by so-called “power feminists” aligned with his perspective. Also included is the suspiciously repetitive insistence that now that he’s partnered with Mariana Caplan, he’s completely monogamous.

His writing reveals that, if nothing else, this is a man who is using his teaching platform to promote his own self-serving and warped agenda.

According to the posted schedule, Gafni will be presenting three times at the conference.

You’ve been so good about raising public concern about questionable spiritual teachers; there are many of us who are profoundly grateful for your articulate voice of integrity! So I thought you might want to be alerted to this recent example of the inappropriateness of this brilliant yet disturbed and dangerous man being presented as a leader in the Integral world.

For some reason Gafni’s name and paper no longer appear with the list of presenters on the ITC website (hmmm, curious), but here’s a link to the paper if you’re interested:

I downloaded the article and have read it (well, skimmed it after the first several pages - it was too garbled to read closely).
I read the article all the way through - painfully.

At one point, Gafni "critiques" the work of Glen Gabbard and Peter Rutter - explicated in Rutter's book, Sex in the Forbidden Zone: When Men in Power - Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and Others - Betray Women's Trust. He suggests that this book is filled with "absolutist language" about relationships with clients - “absolutely never,” “Never at all,” and “There are no exceptions whatsoever” (p. 12).

With his history (The Awareness Center has been tracking his sexual misconduct for years, although the main page they had on him is now missing), one might guess he would not enjoy that book at all. On the other hand, I have not read the book, so maybe it sucks.

Yet, ALL of the ethics boards for therapists condemn and prohibit sexual relationships with clients, including the APA, ACA, ISPA (school psychologists), NBCC, and nearly every other ethics body - including the American Association of Pastoral Counselors.

Gafni's argument in opposition to this collective body of wisdom is this (by the way, this is one of the clearer passages) (quote deleted): the codes are amber fundamentalism, little more than dogma. And he concludes that even Jung transgressed these codes. Further, the authors he cites believe a therapist needs little more than 1-2 years of rehabilitation before returning to practice/

It is not coincidental that Gafni spent two years doing "therapy and inner work," at least according to him, after his "incident" in Israel.

If we ignore his use of the psychoanalytic model to explain transference (this is not accurate for most other models of therapy, including contemporary versions of psychoanalysis), we can focus on his real objection - the book is not based in integral theory. Yet he latches onto the one element of the book, one might assume, that justifies his continued role as a teacher - that one who transgresses can be rehabilitated.

When he first returned to public life after his "rehabilitation," Gafni tried to convince members of the integral community, including me, that if one takes an integral view on his behavior, he did nothing wrong - I am convinced he sincerely believes this to be true. But claiming an integral context does not make it right - nor does claiming an unconventional lifestyle.

Here is the real crux of his argument, however - it's the women's fault he had sex with them. (quote deleted) Their shadow use of power is equally to blame for what happened.

So far, we have two main points - (1) you have to be integral to understand his sexual relationships with students, and ethics code forbidding such relationships are simply dogmatic, and (2) his relationships are outside the conventional paradigm for what is acceptable, and blaming them on his "masculine" shadow while ignoring the feminine shadow is more dogma.

I have no doubt that the women played a substantial role in what happened - these were not rapes, they were inappropriate relationships with students. In this situation, it is the teacher who is SUPPOSED TO KNOW BETTER and do the right thing. He has failed many times in this regard.

This next passage could almost be a quote from Warren Farrell, another friend of Wilber, except that Farrell would likely not be citing feminists of any kind (deleted) - he references some feminists who have critiqued the tendency toward women filing false rape/assault charges against men. In general, they are solid writers and thinkers, but I wonder how they might like be referenced by Gafni in this context.

The interesting thing about Gafni is that some of what he says has merit - some women do have sexual relationships with men and then try to hurt them with claims of abuse and harassment when it ends, and men do use their power to coerce women into having sex with them sometimes. Both of these are shadow material acted out in real time.

If one does not read this stuff with a critical ear, it's easy to get snowed by his arguments in defense of his own actions, which is all this "paper" amounts to. He has submitted a 32 page paper in defense of being sexually inappropriate with students - AND he gets to present this at the Integral Theory Conference.

I know some people involved with the conference raised their objections to his presence - and I also know that Gafni and Wilber have been friends for many years, not to mention that Sally Kempton and Diane Hamilton both support him for some strange reason I cannot conceive.

I'm sure this will not win me any friends among conference organizers, but now you know what Gafni will speaking about and you can read the paper in advance - so use that time to go see someone else.

For example, Dustin DiPerna will be speaking about spiritual development from an integral perspective, Marilyn Hamilton will be speaking on integral meshworking for resilient environments, and Dan O'Conner will be speaking about integral praxiology, an integral science of human action (I'll be blogging this one).

**********

UPDATE: 8/8/2010 - Comments Reopened

In the time since this post went up, I have received a LOT of email from people sharing their perspectives on all of this - some of whom have been among Gafni's "partners."

I have been warned that the reason other sites have removed their posts on Gafni's sexual history and allegations of coercion is that his method is to dig up dirt on people and then "convince" them to pull the posts/articles. His other approach, as he has done with The Awareness Center and with Luke Ford is to discredit them very publicly with material from their past (like chasing like, I suppose) - I guess I have that to look forward to if I continue to raise ethical issues.

For the record: I did a LOT of drugs and alcohol in my past - I was promiscuous, though not while in relationships - I did some "time" as a teenager for growing my own weed, vandalism, minor in possession, and a few other petty crimes - I was once a {shudder} a Republican (briefly), and for a couple of years I was a Communist - I have written some really terrible poetry - oh yeah, and this will be news to some people and not to others, I am bisexual.

OK, then - have at it.

**********

I did not get to attend any of Marc's presentations - Sean and Mark kept me as far away as possible. I did hear from those who attended Mar's solo session that there was no question and answer period after his sermon - his was the ONLY session where this was the case.

So much for open inquiry in the integral community.