MAKBLOG

As part of the Integral Cinema Project’s outreach application process, I recently consulted on a multimedia mental health intervention project at the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois at Chicago Schools of Medicine helping them apply an Integral approach to deepen the power and effect of their intervention. The researchers already had intuitively fleshed out the need for an intervention that addressed the intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social dimensions of the issue at hand, namely helping teens at risk learn to become more resilient in the face of the often daunting challenges of growing up in today’s fast moving and complicated world.

To help the research team apply and integrate these four main intervention dimensions in a more coordinated and effective way I created an Integrally-Informed Sensory Synchronization Template for the project, mapping the four intervention dimensions of intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social across the multimedia expressive dimensions of Text, Image (still & moving), Sound, Time (accumulated meaning patterns), and Interactivity. This integration of the intervention and expression dimensions included the mapping of desired affect patterns and their relationship to expressive modalities including textual linguistic and mimetic patterns; visual shapes, colors, tones, framing and space; audio modalities (dialogic, musical, atmospheric, effectual, etc.); and meaning patterns accumulated over time.

The goal of this approach was to help them coordinate the intervention across multiple modes of expression and perception to induce what cinematic theorist Sergei Eisenstein called the synchronization of the senses, the process in which a message, synchronized across multiple expressive dimensions, achieves the power and force of actual lived multi-sensory experience. This shift from mere information sharing to a deeply felt lived-experience has the potential to induce deep change and transformation across all four dimensions of intention, behavior, relationship formation, and socialization patterns.

This research is still ongoing but initial results suggest a great potential for this approach, and its application for use in multimedia mental health interventions, and other multimedia transformational healing endeavors, including transformational learning, and individual and collective human development applications.

Integral Cinema Project Researcher Report
By Mark Allan Kaplan, Ph.D.

The writings of Ken Wilber have been a lightening rod in the transpersonal movement from early on, being both heralded as foundational theory and attacked for being too linear, hierarchical, complex, etc. Recently I have found myself straddling across two realms of the transpersonal movement, and the demarcation point appears to be pre-SES (“Sex, Ecology, Spirituality”) Wilber and post-SES Wilber influenced. The pre-SES realm of the transpersonal movement focuses on Wilber’s early works as foundational to the movement and continues to hold this early work as representational of Wilber’s theories in general while not seriously taking into account Wilber’s post-SES works as being essential to transpersonal theory. This dimension of the transpersonal movement I am calling Transpersonal 1.0, or pre-Integral Theory Wilber. With the publication of SES, Wilber shifted his theories away from his previous works in essential ways; instead of primarily addressing patterns and structures of psychology, spirituality, and consciousness Wilber moved into the development of a “Theory of Everything” attempting to integrate all dimensions of human perception and experience. At this stage, many perceive that a rift grew between the transpersonal movement and Wilber (and his followers).

To be fair, many contend that Wilber himself contributed to this rift by separating himself from the transpersonal movement and attempting to form a new approach based on his Integral Theory. The common perception is that Wilber’s reasoning for this was that the transpersonal movement was stuck in a limited worldview. In Wilber’s post-SES model or Integral Theory, he places a major emphasis on altitudes of consciousness and the corresponding worldviews. From this perspective, we can see that the transpersonal movement was born out of the pluralistic worldview, and for the most part, transpersonal 1.0 was and is essentially stuck in this worldview. One of the problems with this is that while being born in the pluralistic structure of consciousness, the transpersonal movement is attempting to explore realms beyond this structure. Wilber’s post-SES work introduces a perspective from the next evolutionary structure of consciousness, the Integral structure, which is a stage closer to the transpersonal waves of development.

Now, after several years of two fairly separate movements, the transpersonal and the integral, there appears to be some loosening of the boundaries. It seems that many transpersonalists are integrating Wilber’s post-SES model into transpersonal theory and many Integralists are reintegrating the transpersonal dimensions into their work. This emerging integrated movement is what I am calling Transpersonal 2.0, and to put it in post-SES terms…I would say that Transpersonal 1.0 is looking at the transpersonal waves of experience and development from the more limited perspective of the pluralistic wave (stage, worldview); Wilber’s post-SES Integral Theory introduces us to the missing stage of development between the pluralistic and the transpersonal, namely the Integral; and Transpersonal 2.0, as I am applying it, looks at the transpersonal waves from the closer worldview perspective of the Integral wave and brings the other structures of consciousness into greater perspective. To shack this out a little further, it seems to me that through a post-SES, Transpersonal 2.0 lens we could say that transpersonal studies is basically the theoretical and practical exploration of transpersonal (trans-egoic, non-ordinary, mystical, etc.) states and stages of development.

Okay, so how is this definition different than the one held by the Transpersonal 1.0 movement. Well, on the surface it is the same, but when we go deeper I believe there are some subtle differences. One of these differences is that those operating out of the Transpersonal 1.0 perspective tend to have a conscious or unconscious resistance to structure, since the pluralistic level of consciousness tends to be anti-hierarchical. When we cross the bridge into Transpersonal 2.0 we can accept holarchical structures, that is, we can more easily accept and work with structured stages of increasing depth and complexity without falling into the hierarchical judgment trap (thinking this stage is better or worse than another; or throwing the stage-structure baby out with the bathwater entirely). Understanding that development occurs through a process of transcend and include, each stage both transcends and includes the previous stage, we see that every stage is a whole that is part of another whole, or a holon that is part of a holarchy. So in keeping with this spirit I have to remind us that Transpersonal 1.0 is not inferior to Transpersonal 2.0, it is a stage that is transcended and included… Every stage has its blessings and its challenges; and every station on the path must be passed through on the journey…

The following in an edited transcript of part 2 of a Q & A session I had with a young actor I am working with who was interested in my Integral Approach to acting:

Question: From past experiences with different actors on film, I get worried that I’m not getting the give and take that I deserve from them, that will help us be the best that we can be in that moment..? If I’m stuck with someone as a scene partner who isn’t giving their all, how can I get them to help me develop my character, as well as theirs in the manner they should?

Answer: From my perspective, worrying about what the other actor is or isn’t giving/doing/etc. is not your job as an actor. If you are bringing your best, deeply rooted in your character, your presence, energy, and beingness will lift every other actor to a higher level. I cannot count the number of times I have heard stories from actors how being in a scene with a great actor elevated their own performance beyond anything they could imagine. There is a term called “social contagion” which refers to the contagious nature of higher levels of presence and beingness in relation to human interaction. Your job is to be the character as deeply and fully as possible and interact with the other actors as other character-beings, no matter how flawed their beingness is.

Question: As an actor such as myself, what do you think develops first in becoming a character; The Physical or Mental or Emotional, etc?

Answer: This varies from acting school to acting school, and from actor to actor. The key to an Integral approach is to recognize that all four dimensions (physical/behavioral, experiential/intentional, relational/cultural, and environmental/sociological) co-arise. You can use any dimension as your entry point as long as you recognize and move into a place where all four dimensions co-exist simultaneously.

The following in an edited transcript of a Q & A session I had with a young actor I am working with who was interested in my Integral Approach to acting:

Question: What’s the best way to know one’s self as an actor?

Answer: That is a big and tricky question; one that every acting theorist, coach, etc. would answer a little differently depending on their approach, etc. Since human beings have varied ways of perceiving, what is the “best” way for one actor, may not be the best way for another actor. That said, my own humble opinion is that knowing yourself as a person is key; that is, becoming conscious of the many dimensions of your own being, gives you a strong foundation from which to study the dimensions of your characters’ being. Knowing your self and knowing the self of the character gives you powerful reference points of where you are at and where you need to go to become the character. For example, if you know how you perceive the world, how you relate to others, how your environment has and is impacting you, etc., and if you know these same aspects of your character, you will be able to develop a felt-sense of the difference between these two realms of beingness.

Question: Now I’ve heard of dimension before, but exactly does that mean?

Answer: As with your previous question, the issue of what dimensions we are talking about varies depending on what acting theory we are using. In my experience and research I have found that no matter what these different approaches call these dimensions or how many divisions they make, in essence they are all talking about the same basic realms. The approach I use is based on Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, which is a metatheory that attempts to integrate all human knowledge, and according to this approach we can say that we as human beings have and exist within four main dimension-perspectives: 1. Intentional/Experiential: Our thoughts, feelings, awareness, consciousness, intentions, sense of self or “I”-ness – this includes our multiple lines of development (Cognitive, moral, emotional intelligence, creative abilities, etc.); 2. Behavioral/Physiological: Our bodies, actions, the objects and other bodies we interact with – this includes our physical limitations and gifts; 3. Relational/Cultural: Our cultural worldviews and identity, how we relate to others, or our way of being in relationships or our “WE”-ness; 4. Environmental/Sociological/Systemic: The ecological, political, economic, technological systems that we were born into, grown up in and now operate in and how they have and continue to shape us. Here is a chart from my journal article on Integral Cinema that summarizes these dimensions in relation to a character:

For more on these dimensions and the Integral approach, see my Integral Cinema Studio Series at IntegralLife.com: The Holonic Lens; The Quadratic Lens; and The Developmental Lens.

Question: In your Integral Cinema Studio article on the Holonic Lens you state: “Cinematic holons also have positive, neutral, or negative charges, much like atomic particles. At the level of text, an example of positive and negative charges can be illustrated by the energetic difference between moments of affinity and conflict between characters.” Can you please clarify negative, neutral, or positive; in what aspect; for a film maker or a character?

Answer: Holons are a useful perceptual lens for all aspects of cinema (and life), recognizing that every moment, every experience is a whole in and of itself, and at the same time all the past moments and experiences in your life (or the life of your character) are part of that whole moment/experience as well (i.e., everything that happened to you is part of the whole of who you are right now)…and this whole NOW moment/experience you are having will become a part of you as you move forward into other whole moments/experiences. When we are talking in terms of “charges” connected to these whole/part moments/experiences, as related to a character: Your character can be having a negative (i.e., fear, hate, anger), neutral (i.e., indifference, detachment), or positive (i.e., love, joy, wonder) emotional experience in any given moment. This moment is experienced as a whole unto itself, yet under the surface, deep within the characters unconscious, all the other moments in their lives that resonate with this moment help to color their experience in the present (i.e., in an onscreen moment your character may be feeling love for another character, while at the same time every other experience of love in their life is swirling inside them under the surface…so for example, if your character has had bad love experiences in the past, their present moment of love may bring up a tiny quiver of fear inside them. This fear may not be easily seen on the surface, but a great actor can feel this and energetically project this undercurrent to the audience). This performance moment then becomes a positively charged whole moment with a subtextual negative charge as a part of it…a holon…a whole/part.

Announcing the INTEGRAL CINEMA STUDIO article series at Integral Life

The Integral Cinema Studio at Integral Life is an article series on the application of Integral Theory to cinematic media theory and practice.

Integral Theory is a metatheory that offers several perspective-taking frameworks or lenses of perception through which we can perceive, experience, and integrate the multiple dimensions of existence. In this series of articles I will be exploring applying these various Integral lenses to the creation and viewing of cinematic media, which I am defining as any media that uses moving (kinetic) images as a means of expression.

This series is written with a general audience in mind and no prior knowledge of either Integral or cinematic theory is required. My hope is that there is something here for the novice and the expert, for the artist, theorist, and the average viewer of cinematic media in all its forms, and for those on the journey to better understand their self, culture, and world.

The first Integral lens I am exploring is the HOLONIC lens. To view this article click here.

INTEGRAL CINEMA STUDIO: THE HOLONIC LENS

Please join me in this exploration of the further reaches of the cinematic arts…

Special Thanks to Ken Wilber, Corey DeVos, David Riordan, Michael Schwartz, and all the gang at Integral Life for the inspiration and support, and for providing this wonderful platform for sharing my work.

Images: Integral+Life Logo; The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

The term integral cinema was first used by French avant-garde filmmaker Germaine Dulac in the 1920s. Dulac employed this term to describe cinema that utilized the natural inherent language of the cinema to evoke the interior life normally hidden beneath the exterior life of the objective world (Flitterman-Lewis, 1996). This form of cinema was also called pur cinema or visual music, because of the contention by its adherents that the language of the cinema is a language all its own, more related to music or poetics, than to literature or drama. In order to liberate the cinematic image from literary or dramatic expression, “…Dulac sought to create for the spectator a ‘cinegraphic sensation’ that could be achieved through the contemplation of pure forms in movement—the melodic arrangement of luminous reflections, the rhythmic ordering of successive shots” (Flitterman-Lewis, 1996, pp. 69-70).

While Dulac’s theoretical writings and public discourses on integral cinema mostly focus on this definition, her films reveal two distinct types of cinematic approaches. Whereas some of her films did seek to explore pure visual music approaches of using cinematic imagery, movement, and rhythm to reveal the interior life, films like her 1928 classic, La Coquille et le Clergyman (The Seashell and the Clergyman), reveal the raw beginnings of a more comprehensive or “integral” approach that attempts to use the inherent language of the cinema to capture and express the interior and exterior lives of both the individual and the collective. Dulac hints at this approach when she writes, “It isn’t enough to simply capture reality in order to express it in its totality; something else is necessary in order to respect it entirely, to surround it in its atmosphere, and to make its moral meaning perceptible…” (Dulac, as cited in Flitterman-Lewis, 1996, p. 49).

This more comprehensive approach hauntingly captures some of the constructs of Jean Gebser’s integral worldview (1985) and Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (1995) while predating both by 21 and 67 years, respectively. These Integral constructs, as elementarily expressed in Dulac’s La Coquille et le Clergyman, include rudimentary cinematic representations of Gebser’s aperspectival structures of the concretion of time and interiority, and Wilber’s Integral framework of multiple dimension-perspectives with evolving levels of depth and complexity. More recent examples of these types of cinematic structures include: The concretion of time in films like Groundhog Day (1993), where concrete shifts in time affect objective and subjective realities; the concretion of interiority in films like The Matrix (1999), where individual and collective subjective realities are given concrete forms;  and multiple dimension-perspectives of evolving depth and complexity in films like Inception (2010), where the characters move through different dimensions of reality as they evolve toward deeper levels of understanding and being.

While Dulac’s integral cinema movement was a significant contribution to the evolution of the cinema in many ways, it was also short-lived due to several factors. In 1928, the year that Dulac made La Coquille et le Clergyman in France, Hollywood released the first talking picture, The Jazz Singer (1927), and ushered in the sound film era. For many film theorists and historians, the introduction of sound marked the downfall of the artistic trailblazing of the silent film era as cinematic artists attempted to adjust and adapt to the new technological advancement, and audiences became enthralled by the heightened sense of reality of the talking picture (Andrew, 1976). The following year Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí made Un Chien Andalou (1929), which took the avant-garde cinema world by storm and established a precursor of postmodern relativism and meaning deconstruction as the center of gravity for the artistic worldview of experimental cinema, overshadowing Dulac’s more integral vision (Ebert, 2000; Short, 2008).

Finally, since Dulac operated from an unconscious expression of a worldview that had yet to be named or theoretically mapped, her integral vision ultimately fell dormant. Wilber notes that some kind of prescient emergence of integral consciousness appeared sporadically throughout Western civilization in the early to mid-20th century. Examples of this emergence include Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga (1921/1990), Jacques Maritain’s Integral Humanism (1996), and Vladimir Soloviev’s Integral Christianity (Kostalevsky, 1997). Wilber also notes that these integral visions, along with Dulac’s, were short-lived because they were initial emergences not supported in all four fundamental domains of experiential, material, cultural, and social realities (Wilber, personal communication, July 20, 2010).

Beginning in the mid-1990s, concurrent with the dissemination of Wilber’s Integral Theory, there has been a growing movement of individuals and groups who have been applying integral principles to their personal and professional lives. In the domain of the cinematic arts, scholar-practitioners have explored the application of Integral Theory to cinematic story creation, acting, and video game design (Melody, 2008; Ornst, 2008; Silbiger, 2010). In addition, several cinematic artists have begun to explore and engage in dialogue about Integral Theory in relation to both their personal and professional lives (Aronofsky & Davis, 2006; Brill & Wilber, 2006; Crichton & Wilber, 2004; Konietzko & Davis, 2007; Ormond & Wilber, 2004; Stone & Wilber, 2007; Wachowski & Wilber, 2004). Wilber’s Integral Theory was also an inspiration to filmmakers Larry and Andy Wachowski (Wachowski & Wilber, 2004) in the development of The Matrix (1999), The Matrix Reloaded (2003), and The Matrix Revolutions (2003). The Wachowski brothers also invited Wilber to record a commentary on the films for The Ultimate Matrix Collection (2004), a complete DVD set of the films.

Nearly three quarters of a century after Dulac’s work, many people within the integral and cinematic arts communities are raising the same question that Dulac asked many years ago: “What is Integral Cinema?”

_______________________________________________________

This material is an adapted excerpt from: Kaplan, M. A. (2010). Toward an integral cinema: The application of integral theory to cinematic media theory and practice. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(4), 112-138. Copyright © 2010 by Integral Institute. The complete article is available for download at Integral+Life.com.

Germaine Dulac’s La coquille et le clergyman is available for viewing online in its entirety at: http://www.ubu.com/film/dulac_coquille.html

There are two uses of the term “transcinema.” One is used to refer to films about transgender issues and is usually spelled “trans-cinema;” the other usage, spelled “transcinema,” refers to creative works that use cinematic expression as part of a hybrid creative work, usually a combination of live performance and projected cinematic imagery.

The transcinema movement can be traced back to avant-garde art movements in the 60s and had a resurgence back in the late 90s and early part of the 2000s. This later expression appears to be connected to the introduction of digital media technologies and a greater cultural movement of convergence in media platforms. This movement can also be correlated to Integral and transpersonal cultural and creative trends in that it is boundary transcending (transpersonal) and represents a striving toward an integrated multi-dimensional mode of expression (Integral).

During my research into this area I discovered several patterns that appear to be unique to this form of hybrid cinema. It seems that once you start combining live performance and imagery and sound, audiences gets hooked on it and the absence of one or more of these elements must be used with extreme purpose and prejudice.

There is also a natural expectation of a “third and fourth story” beyond the story of the performance and the story on the screen; there is the story of their convergence (the convergence story) and the container for this convergence (the spatial story).

In addition, the audience tends to expect and anticipate a build in convergence between the live performance and the cinematic projections as the piece unfolds; they also tend to anticipate a convergence climax. Of course, the transcinema artist/team, have the choice to fulfill this pattern or consciously play against it, either subtly or overtly.

The Integral Cinema Project is now affiliated with the Integral Research Center (IRC). The IRC’s mission is to support the advancement of Integral Research (IR) and the global community of Integral scholar-practitioners through a variety of activities including: Supporting Integral research projects through grants and support services; providing a forum and resources for the Integral research community; supporting graduate level education and fieldwork in Integral studies; publishing academic articles and original research through special issues of Journal of Integral Theory and Practice; and by sponsoring the bi-annual Integral Theory Conference.

Integral Research is an emerging approach to mixed methods that is explicitly grounded in Integral Theory and makes use of its post-metaphysical position and its practice of Integral Methodological Pluralism to provide a multi-method approach that weaves together 1st-person, 2nd-person, and 3rd-person methods. IR makes use of multiple methods (qualitative and quantitative) as a way of exploring the multi-faceted and multi-dimensional nature of complex phenomena.

ABSTRACT: Germaine Dulac’s “integral cinema movement” of the 1920s and her integral cinematic work, La Coquille et le Clergyman (1928), are analyzed from a historical and theoretical perspective. Results suggest an early introduction of integral consciousness into cinematic media that corresponds to and predates the integral theories of both Jean Gebser and Ken Wilber. Defining characteristics of what may constitute an integral cinematic work are mapped out and developed into a set of evaluation criteria using the works of Dulac, Gebser, and Wilber. A test of these evaluation criteria with the viewing of several motion pictures is summarized; the results suggest that several past and recent films demonstrate qualities that could be said to constitute an integral cinematic work. A preliminary typology of forms of integral cinematic creation, and the potential benefits and challenges for the application of Integral Theory to cinematic theory and practice are presented and discussed.

Published in The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 2010, Volume 5, Number 4, Pages 112-138.

I have been researching what I call transformative creation-states for several years now. By this I mean the use of spiritual, transpersonal, and integral approaches for creative expression to induce altered states of consciousness in order to intentionally convert the creative act into a deeply transformative experience for both the artist and the viewer.

During my research in this area I have discerned several discreet transformative creation-states including creative inspiration-states, catharsis-states, visioning-states, witnessing-states, resonance-states, integration-states, and states of creative grace. I also observed and experienced various group creation states including creative group fields and I-Thou creation states in which members of the creative environment become the “sacred other.”

In addition, during this inquiry I also found a confluence of both structure and flow in the transformative creative process, manifesting within, around, and between any and all of these various transformative creation states. There also appears to be a process in which these two state typologies converge, leading to a transformative creative synthesis of structure and flow.

For example, in my own creative work (film, writing, drawing, etc.), I have found that I can approach the transformative-creative act from a pure flow approach (mindfulness/beingness approach) or from a pure structure approach (e.g., applying sacred rituals and practices or esoteric spiritual structures like Kabbalistic Divine-creation patterns). When I really click into either one of these two creation-state typologies a synthesis appears to occur: The flow-process produces previously hidden structures, and the structure-process leads to a kind of structure-flow experience in which Divine energy appears to move through the structures and, if I am open to it, takes me into a flow through the structures along with it. These experiments have led me to play with a synthesis approach, consciously marrying flow and structure in a sacred-creative dance.

Looking at this triangulation pattern through the masculine/feminine typology lens, the flow-process can be correlated to the feminine, the structure-process correlated to the masculine, and the synthesis of the two can be seen as a union of the deep masculine and feminine.