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…

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.

Sean Esbjörn-Hargen, Ph.D. has agreed to be an advisor on the Integral Cinema Project. Sean is an associate professor and founding Chair of the Integral Theory Program at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, California. He is a leading scholar-practitioner in Integral Theory and has worked closely with Ken Wilber for a decade operationalizing the integral (AQAL) model in multiple contexts. Sean is a founding member of Integral Institute and currently serves as their Vice President of Applications and Research. He is also the founding Director of the Integral Research Center, the founding Executive Editor of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, and co-founder of the biennial Integral Theory Conference. Sean is one of the most published authors applying the integral model to a variety of topics, including: Research, consciousness studies, intersubjectivity, education, sustainable development, ecology, science and religion, and play. His articles have appeared in academic journals such as theJournal of Consciousness Studies, World Futures, ReVision, andJournal of Humanistic Psychology. He also co-edited Ken Wilber’s book The Simple Feeling of Being, (2004) and is the co-author ofIntegral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World(2009) and the editor of Integral Theory in Action (2010). You can learn more about Sean at: http://www.rhizomedesigns.org/

My first inkling of an integral life came upon me when I was sitting at the bedside of my dying mother in the spring of 1993. Alzheimer’s and a severe stroke had taken their toll upon her and she could no longer see, speak, or move her body, except for small motions of her hands, head, and feet. As I sat by her side with various members of my family for several days, I had a profound mystical experience. All my years of studying many different spiritual traditions, mysteriously and automatically coalesced into a multi-tradition integrative practice of prayer, meditation, and presence that appeared to assist my mother and my whole family through the dying and grieving process, while also transforming my own heart and mind.

After this profoundly sorrowful and grace-filled experience, I began to see how each spiritual tradition I had studied had its own unique gifts and perspectives, which when put together created a more complete picture of my self, the world, and the Divine. This gave me my first real glimpse of what it means to live an Integral Life; a life that strives to engage in a wondrous evolutionary journey of ever-expanding and integrating fields of awareness, revealing higher, deeper and more expansive visions of self, others, and the world.

I am one of the many faces of the recent and current healthcare and financial crisis. It all began when I became ill after having lost my health insurance. I ended up going into major debt paying for my own care, which led to financial ruin and near-homeless. I experienced first-hand the profound tetra-enmeshed nature of the healthcare and financial crisis in our country…feeling and perceiving loss, isolation, and pain on the physical, emotional, communal, and systemic levels of experience. During this whole process I felt a strange kind of connection between the inner and the outer as my own personal health and financial crisis appeared to be reflected in the greater culture and society. I could not help but feel that this was all part of a tetra-evolutionary process. On the individual level, besides my outer physical healing work throughout all this, I have also been attempting to process this whole experience on the using various inner Integral Life Practices, including Shadow work to uncover my own personal Shadow patterns that contributed to this situation. Concurrent with this individual inner-outer work, I have also been attempting to reflect on the collective and social dimensions of my experience by exploring the current healthcare debate from an Integral perspective, using various Integral lenses.

Looking at the issue from Integral Theory’s Big Three of I-We-It or 1st-2nd-3rd Person dimension-perspectives, it seems to me that within the boiling healthcare debate-soup there are 1st Person (1p), 2nd Person (2p), and 3rd Person (3p) competing healthcare reform approaches:

• Individual-Freedom-oriented (1p) free-market “private” healthcare approaches;
• Social-Systemic-oriented (3p) government-run “public” healthcare approaches; and
• Collective-Community-oriented (2p) co-operative/non-profit “semi-public/private” healthcare approaches.

The private (1p) approaches appear to be most heavily associated with the conservative and mythic value meme (vMeme) political camps; The semi-public/private (2p) approaches associated with the centrist and rational vMeme political camps; and public (3p) approaches associated with the progressive and pluralistic vMeme political camps. In between these centers-of-gravity there appears to be varying degrees of attempted integration from those who are on the borders (between mythic/rational and rational/pluralistic vMemes).

Within this debate there also appears to be a fundamental question of whether healthcare is an “inalienable right” or “a privilege.” I believe this question is rooted in the central duality of our country’s doctrines which attempt to include equal measures of individual freedoms and certain socially-protected “inalienable” equal rights. Many of the 1p or private approaches to healthcare appear to champion freedom (individual and market) while forsaking some level of equality (degree of healthcare depends on economic class) and inalienable rights (degree of health is often directly related to an individual’s capacity to pursue the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness). Alternatively, many of the 3p or public healthcare approaches appear to sacrifice some degree of freedom (individual and market) in exchange for healthcare equality and inalienable rights, and most of the 2p or semi-public/private approaches seem to sacrifice some degree of both freedom and equality.

Then we have the issues of cost and quality. The private (1p) healthcare approaches tend to cost more for the individual person or group directly and cost less in taxation, while offering a relatively high degree of quality for those who can afford it and often a poor degree of quality for those who cannot afford it. The public (3p) approaches appear to cost the individual or group less in direct costs and more in taxation, while offering a more moderate degree of quality to a greater and more equal population. The semi-public/private (2p) approaches generally seem to offer a moderate degree of both cost and quality.

I believe this type of public/private/semi- (1p-2p-3p) tension can also be observed in our approaches to education. While our system is far from perfect, we seem to have achieved some degree of integration between the three perspectives by simultaneously offering public (3p) education, private (1p) education, and semi- public/private (2p) education (charter schools, home-schooling, etc). I think education is a good correlation to healthcare because both education and health affect an individual’s ability to pursue the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

In light of our country’s dual aspiration of individual freedom and socially-protected inalienable equal rights, I believe that a 100% private or a 100% public healthcare system is untenable and fundamentally incongruent with the aspirations and doctrines of our republic. While the nuts and bolts of our education system still needs a lot of work, I believe the 3-tiered structure that has evolved is inherently natural to our country’s ideals and current vMeme structures. Using this model, here is one possible scenario for an Integral “Big Three” approach to healthcare reform…

Basic Healthcare System Design:

• Public Healthcare: Expansion of Medicaid and Medicare into a full-blown public healthcare system for those who cannot afford private care.
• Private Healthcare: Strike a healthy balance of regulation and freedom for the Private Healthcare system (i.e.: Stronger patient rights; allow competition across state-lines; insurance pooling system; and balanced tort-reform).
• Semi-Public/Private Healthcare: Regulatory support and incentives for Cooperative, Charter, and Non-Profit healthcare groups.

Obviously within this kind of three-tiered (1p-2p-3p) system there are a lot of complicated details that would have to be worked out, but I do believe a more Integral approach, like the basic template of the above three perspectives and the inherent dual aspirations of our system, can help a great deal. For example, with this awareness in mind, it seems to me that the notion of requiring all citizens to buy health insurance may go against the individual freedoms doctrines of our country. Interestingly, it seems that with the above proposed three-tier healthcare system, this requirement would be unnecessary, since the public system would be a free system for those who cannot afford private or semi-private/public healthcare.

So here it is…my own personal attempt to jump into the healthcare debate. I toss these words into the healthcare tetra-evolutionary soup with my prayers for vertical transformation for myself, for those in similar and worse situations, and for the greater system in which we live and co-create and co-evolve…

*Originally published at Integral Life

If the co-evolutionary dance between the Pluralistic worldview movement in the LL cultural holon and the Information Age in the LR social holon is evolving to the next level, that of an Integral worldview movement in the LL cultural holon, the question arises: What is the equivalent Socio-Techno-Economic Age in the LR social holon?

There are many indicators that suggest that this next age is already unfolding, as information technologies and networks evolve into convergent technologies, networks, and systems. Terminologies like convergence media appliances, virtual reality, immersive environments, avatars, embedded technologies, and augmented realities are swirling around in the information soup. Entertainment streams across multiple delivery platforms into our theaters, homes, cars, computer screens, phones, gaming consoles, and even through digital walls in the architectural and social spaces around us. The movie Avatar immerses us in its world through immersive IMAX 3D technology telling us a story about becoming technologically immersed in another body and reality. Gamers take on virtual personas and play each other in living rooms and on cell phones across the globe. On other technology fronts, human and natural realities are converging as well, from genetic modification to hybrid and nanotechnologies. We ride around in hybrid vehicles, eat genetically modified foods, wear nanotech clothing, attend virtual concerts, purchase goods and services in a virtual economy, and communicate with each other through phones that are also computers, radios, televisions, and global positioning devices.

One of the first observers of the convergence trend in media technologies was MIT political scientist Ithiel de Sola Pool who noted an emerging media convergence process that he called the “convergence of modes” in which the lines between media platforms are blurred and “the one-to-one relationship between a medium and its use” is eroded (Pool, 1983, p.23).

American media scholar Henry Jenkins extended this work through his observations of a co-evolutionary trend between convergence media socio-techno-economic forces (LR) and what he calls convergence culture (LL), noting that “convergence does not occur through media appliances, however sophisticated they become. Convergence occurs within the brains of the individual consumers and through their social interactions with others” (Jenkins, 2008, p.3). This new convergence culture is made up of individuals and social networks that engage with and integrate dispersed media content into meaningful wholes. Jenkins notes that this co-evolving techno-cultural movement appears to be ushering in an “…era of media convergence, collective intelligence, and participatory culture” (Jenkins, 2008, p.170).

Another hallmark of this Convergence Age is the increased capacity for embodied “perspective-taking.” Whereas the Information Age gave us a multitude of information and information sources, the Convergence Age portends to offer us the capacity to take on a multitude of perceptions and worldviews, one of the essential qualities of the Integral perspective.

Both Pool and Jenkins note that the capacity to navigate this rapidly evolving and convergent environment is incredibly complex and challenging. If this trend is indeed the co-evolutionary movement in an Integral-Convergence Age, then the Integral worldview would be the most appropriate level of consciousness for fully comprehending and mastering this unfolding era.

One of the coming major tipping points in the emergence of this Convergence Age will most likely be the widespread disbursement of high speed and high bandwidth communication networks advanced enough to fully handle immersive, embedded, and virtual realties. While this technology already exists, its widespread dispersion is dependent on various political and financial constraints…so this tipping point in the technological and communication domains can occur very soon or take many years to actually reach its evolutionary moment. Google’s recent announcement of their intention to bring this type of widespread and advanced networking technology to the world is an indicator that there is indeed movement toward this particular tipping point.

Wilber notes that as we evolve up the evolutionary ladder, greater depth and span also brings greater challenges and potential dangers (Wilber, 2003). This new Convergence Age also ushers in the potential threat of nano-viruses, genetic mutation, the erosion of direct human contact social structures, and many other new challenges.

Many of these threats come from the potential misuse of these higher technologies by individuals and cultures operating at a lower worldview. History is full of horrific examples of this mismatch between consciousness and technology, from the holocaust to the potential for nuclear terrorism. The complex and often push and pull co-evolution of consciousness and technology is interestingly reflected in the film Avatar, which appears to be a convergence technology movie with a Pluralistic worldview center-of-gravity, telling a story about the use and abuse of convergence technologies by a dysfunctional mythic-rational human culture against an idyllic (Pre/Trans) magic-mythic alien culture.

As with all evolutionary movements, there is great challenge and also great potential. As one nanotechnology futurist website proclaims… “We are approaching an evolutionary event horizon, where the organic and the synthetic, the virtual and the ‘real’, are merging together into an operational ecology, an existence morphology for which there is no precedent in the history of which we are currently aware” (http://www.historianofthefuture.com/).

REFERENCES

Henry Jenkins (2008). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: NYU Press.

Ithiel de Sola Pool (1983). Technologies of Freedom: On Free Speech in an Electronic Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Ken Wilber (2003). Volume 2 of the Kosmos Trilogy: Excerpts A, B, C, D, and G. Available at: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/index.cfm/

*Originally published at Integral Life

One of the ways to deepen the practice of seeking, receiving, and following divine guidance is to unpack our constructs of the Divine Source.

Integral Theory has a great practice to help open our perceptions of Source. It is called the The Three Faces of Spirit and can be found at:

http://integrallife.com/awaken/spirit/practice-three-faces-spirit