Release of my new Integral Philosophy DVD Set

This week I'm launching a new 2 DVD set on integral philosophy. DVD#1 is an interview of me by Boulder Integral's Jeff Salzman (recorded on February 3, 2009) wherein we cover the essential elements of integral theory. This video interview thus serves as a basic introduction to the integral worldview as I understand it. DVD#2 is a conversation between philosopher Michael Zimmerman and I (recorded on January 8, 2009) on the spiritual implications of evolution. This second DVD is a somewhat more advanced discussion, which covers some of the subject matter of the book I'm now working on (see the previous blog post for a description of this book-in-progress). Both DVDs were filmed at Boulder Integral, and are now being published by my company, Now & Zen. You can watch a 6-minute preview of DVD#1 and a 4-minuite preview of DVD#2 here:

http://www.stevemcintosh.com/Evolution_of_Consciousness.php

Back in 2007 I blogged about the launch of the new Boulder Center for Integral Living (see the blog post of May 9, 2009 on this website). This community center for the fostering of integral culture was founded by Jeff Salzman and his colleague Ross Hostetter, and since its inception in 2007, it has grown into an impressive institution. Its name has been abbreviated to "Boulder Integral" and it is now headquartered in a former church here in downtown Boulder, Colorado. You can see their website at this link:

http://www.boulderintegral.org

During the last two years I have attended (and given) a variety of lectures, workshops, and conferences at Boulder Integral, and I feel that this organization has now made a significant contribution to the emergence of the integral worldview. Moreover, I've become close friends with Jeff (who happens to live two doors down from me) and with Ross and his wife Mary, resulting in me being invited to serve on Boulder Integral's board of directors.

One of the experimental directions pursued by Boulder Integral has been the production of integral videos. In connection with this endeavor, Jeff hired film director David Riordan, who has worked in Hollywood and who directed the recent "Future of Christianity DVD" in partnership with Integral Life. Over the past few months Jeff and David have conducted interviews with a variety of integral thinkers and activists (including the interview in DVD#1) and have now assembled an archive of interviews. They also experimented with a variation on the interview format, taking the form of conversations or dialogues, the first of which was the dialogue between Michael Zimmerman and I, resulting in DVD#2.

Michael Zimmerman is a professional philosopher with a distinguished academic career, and was an original member of Ken Wilber's Integral Institute. His new book, Integral Ecology, (co-authored with professor Sean Esbjörn-Hargens) makes a significant contribution to the integral worldview. Michael moved to Boulder in 2006 to become Director of the Center for Humanities and the Arts at the University of Colorado. And shortly thereafter he and I began taking hikes in the local mountains and have now become good friends. Whenever Michael and I would get together the conversation was exceptionally stimulating, so we thought it would be worthwhile to experiment by recording one of our conversations on video, with this new DVD being the outcome.

At the moment, Boulder Integral has no plans to publish these experimental videos as DVDs, so Jeff was happy to let me cherry pick the best of these and distribute them through Now & Zen. Since Now & Zen had previously published a DVD interview of me by EnlightenNext's Carter Phipps, the process of publishing this new Integral Philosophy DVD Set went pretty smoothly. Overall, I'm proud of the results and feel that these videos are a tangible fruit of the excellent work done by everyone involved with Boulder Integral.

 

My Next Book

I haven't blogged in a while because I've started work on my next book, which is, perhaps predictably, about evolution. The thesis of the book is still moving around, so it's too early to commit myself to anything formal. However, I'm trying to bring together a variety of related ideas in an effort to say something original.

First, when we expand the definition of evolution to include the cosmological evolution of matter, the biological evolution of life, and the sociocultural evolution of human history, we find that this overarching theme of universe development has unmistakable symbolic implications. That is, these facts cannot be contained in a purely empirical system -- they have an undeniable metaphysical message. And the metaphysical message that has been attached to them so far -- the message that evolution is a random process that has no purpose and makes no progress -- becomes self-evidently false once we begin to recognize that these different types of development are all nevertheless forms of authentic evolution.

Second, when we look into the evolution of human history and culture, we find that a significant factor in this type of evolution is the underlying evolution of consciousness itself. Prior to humans, the evolution of consciousness in animals proceeded in lockstep with their biology -- for an animal to get appreciably smarter it had to evolve its brain. But humans have demonstrated the remarkable ability to evolve their consciousness in ways that are partially liberated from their biology. The fact that consciousness itself evolves is thus another factor that shows the need for a new metaphysical container or framework for our understanding of evolution as a whole.

Just as the science of physics was radically transformed in the 20th century from Newtonian physics to quantum physics, I will argue that we are now witnessing a similar transformation in the subject of evolution. This new era in our understanding of evolution will include an enlarged recognition of interiors and the indispensable role of purpose in the evolutionary process -- the evident purpose found in all forms of consciousness. This does not signal a retreat from scientific standards of rigor nor an embrace of creationism in any form, but it does show us how materialistic metaphysics are currently exhausted and a new, more adequate metaphysical container for evolution is now demanded by the emerging facts.

As I hope to demonstrate, the new form of "minimal metaphysics" that is required for our deeper understanding of evolution involves the recognition of the essential role of beauty, truth, and goodness in the developmental process. These intrinsic values serve to kindle the evolutionary impulse, pulling evolution forward by luring consciousness into increasingly more evolved states and stages. And as we discover these larger truths within the evolutionary process we come to appreciate Alfred North Whitehead's consciousness-centric definition of evolution, which holds that:

"Evolution is an increase in the ability to experience what is intrinsically valuable."

Obviously, these statements require extensive explanation and argumentation to be credible, but this is why I'm writing the book! I'll provide updates on my progress as the writing unfolds. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to email me with your thoughts and suggestions on this exciting and controversial subject.

 

Applied Integral Politics—Simulating the Operation of Future Global Law

Those who follow my work know that I am an advocate of political evolution toward a limited, democratic, integral world federation. My views on this goal are described in Integral Consciousness, and elaborated further in a 2007 interview with EnlightenNext Magazine, found here:

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j38/mcIntosh.asp

Moreover, since 2004 I have maintained an on-line petition entitled: A Declaration of the Value of Global Governance, found here:

http://www.integralworldgovernment.org

Although I believe the advent of a functional world federation is contingent upon the rise of the integral worldview in approximately 10% of the population of the developed world, I think there are ways we can begin using this future goal in the present. In other words, if we know that human social and cultural evolution will eventually result in an effective form of democratic global governance, we can start to plan and act in ways that will simulate the benefits of global law now. We can look beyond the current conditions of a post-colonial world of competing nation states "in a state of nature," and envision geopolitical solutions that could be achieved by a future world federation.

One such solution applies to the war in Afghanistan. Below is a 1,100 word "Op-Ed" article I recently wrote, which suggests how a supranational authority could "change the game" and provide an innovative solution for peace in the region. The article is aimed at modernists, with no mention of integral politics or world federation. It thus provides an example of how integral politics can be applied in the modernist marketplace of ideas. This piece will be published next week on the German world affairs website:

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com

However, I wanted to offer it here as well, with the addition of this larger explanation of the integral context in which it was conceived. At the end of the piece, below, I offer some additional "extra-textual" commentary.

Op-Ed Article: WINNING IN AFGHANISTAN
— An Innovative Strategy for Peace

Steve McIntosh

The war in Afghanistan is on the verge of being lost. Unlike the fledgling government of Iraq, the government of Hamid Karzai has not been able to exert control over the Afghan countryside (as is painfully demonstrated by the burgeoning opium industry which finances the Taliban). Despite the best efforts of the NATO alliance and many well-intentioned Afghans, the Karzai government remains a very fragile entity whose existence is wholly dependent on the ongoing presence of 30,000 American troops.

Employing the same tactic that defeated the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the Taliban have used the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as their primary weapon, conducting hit and run attacks in Afghanistan and then retreating to their sanctuary across the border. Although Pakistan has made ostensible efforts to attack Taliban sanctuaries within its territory, these initiatives have been undermined by the ineptitude of the Pakistani army, and by the fact that many Pakistani military leaders covertly support the Taliban. This unwillingness to combat the Taliban arises from the perception that the continuing military viability of the Taliban is necessary to counter Afghanistan's increasingly close ties with Pakistan's enemy, India. Karzai has consistently favored India over Pakistan in his foreign relations, and this has helped to fuel the ongoing "cold war" in the region.

Exacerbating the situation of a nearly failed state in Afghanistan is the very real prospect that Pakistan may also become a failed state. The recent U.S. ground and missile attacks into the tribal areas of Pakistan may have taken out certain Taliban leaders, but these attacks have also put severe domestic pressure on Pakistan's new democratic government. Thus, the simplistic strategy of "chasing the Taliban into their cross-border sanctuaries in Pakistan and finishing them off" does not appear to be a viable option because of its destabilizing affect.

President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to send perhaps 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan. However, even a reinforced total of 50,000 U.S. troops are unlikely to resolve the conflict. During their war in Afghanistan the Soviets maintained troop levels of approximately 100,000 and still suffered over 15,000 deaths at the hands of the Mujahideen. Like the North Vietnamese before them, the Mujahideen effectively used the protection of an international border to defeat a more technologically advanced enemy. And this is the same situation we face today; the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is proving to be as reliable a weapon in this century as it was in the last.

Tacitly acknowledging the futility of our military efforts, former White House Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called for a "political solution" which would seek to disengage with the Taliban in exchange for a promise not to harbor or support Al Qaeda. However, it is doubtful that the Taliban's central command could make such an agreement, and associated tribal leaders have already broken similar agreements with Pakistan. So it is naive to expect that any agreements made with the Taliban regarding Al Qaeda would be honored.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute recommends a less conciliatory strategy that would concentrate on training and expanding the Afghan National Army. However, the Soviets tried this very same strategy, which failed badly due to the unreliability of Afghan troops and the Mujahideen's effective use of the border as a shield for its guerilla war.

The U.S. is thus faced with a seemingly no-win situation. If we withdraw our troops Afghanistan will revert back to the pre-9/11 status quo within weeks. If we accelerate the war by attacking the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan we could trigger a civil war in Pakistan and destabilize the entire region. And if we try to "stay the course" by sending in two more brigades of U.S. troops with the hope of training the Afghans to eventually take over the war for us, we will have embraced a Vietnamesque losing strategy that will bleed us slowly until we finally capitulate.

Therefore, in Afghanistan we need a bold "game changing" strategy, similar to Nixon's trip to China in 1972, which turned the tables on the Soviets and marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War. We need a strategy that will improve conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan simultaneously. Such a strategy will not be without its own risks, but wars are rarely won through plodding caution.

If we want to WIN in Afghanistan we need to eliminate the artificial, colonial relic that is the border with Pakistan. This could be done by ceding Afghanistan to Pakistan in exchange for a joint security agreement with the Pakistani military under which temporary yet direct military access to the tribal areas could be had by NATO forces. The divided region of Pashtunistan, which currently straddles the border, could be united as a province within an expanded Pakistan and given a degree of autonomy; providing something of a "victory" for this proud people, while simultaneously taking away the Taliban's primary weapon—the border that divides their country. The remaining Persian speaking regions of Afghanistan could also be given a high degree of provincial autonomy within a greater Pakistan, similar to the kind of autonomy enjoyed by the Kurds in Iraq.

Not only would such a bold move devastate the Taliban's ability to make war in Afghanistan, it would also strengthen and support Pakistan, making it more secure in its relations with its Indian and Iranian neighbors. Moreover, through this action we would remove the primary justification for the Pakistani military's tacit support for the Taliban—with the two countries consolidated into one federal region, the Taliban's role of buffer force for Pakistan will become unnecessary.

Unlike Iraq's government, which has developed a relative degree of freestanding legitimacy, the Karzai government's sovereignty extends for only about five square blocks in Kabul, and would quickly collapse without the presence of U.S. troops. Afghanistan's de facto government consists of corrupt warlords, and the countryside is increasingly lawless. Thus, if we want to bring lasting peace to this region we must face the fact that the "country" of Afghanistan is not a sacrosanct entity. Like a house with a faulty foundation, the current geopolitical container of the Afghan people cannot be built upon in a sustainable way. As long as Afghanistan remains occupied by NATO and defined by the 1,600 mile border that once marked the frontier of the British Empire, it cannot succeed as a nation.

Despite the inevitable difficulties and objections that such a bold strategy is bound to provoke, if the U.S. wants to put an end to the increasing bloodshed on both sides and avoid spending needless billions in a war without end, we need to innovate. We need to learn from the lessons of Vietnam and not allow ourselves to be defeated by a border that we must recognize but that our enemies may ignore.

[end of op-ed article]

Some afterthoughts

After reading this piece, you may ask: how could this ever be achieved? This is too radical and would be opposed by the U.N., Afghans, India, Europe, etc. So let me emphasize that this is a solution of last resort. Perhaps NATO will have to withdraw, let the Taliban take over, and then invade a second time to create a "clean slate" under which borders could be adjusted to correspond to the natural borders of consciousness. I would certainly like to end this war in a less dramatic and potentially disruptive way, but as argued in the article, "staying the course" will only likely produce another Vietnam—a lengthy and bloody conflict that we will inevitably lose. Thus, if you have a better idea for peace in the region, I'd love to hear it.

 

"We All Speak Arabic" Memorial — cultural healing for Iraq

As of this writing, it looks like the war in Iraq is winding down. So as we prepare to leave, I feel strongly that for all we have destroyed, and for all we have tried to build back up in the way of security and infrastructure, we also need to try to reconstruct some cultural interiors in Iraq—we need to restore some of the dignity of the Iraqi people and pay tribute to their once and future greatness.

Toward this end, I have conceived and designed a teaching memorial for Baghdad called: "We All Speak Arabic." This memorial would celebrate the accomplishments in mathematics achieved during the golden age of Islam—many of which were actually made in Baghdad.

The “We all speak Arabic” memorial would celebrate Islamic civilization’s significant contributions to our international system of decimal numbers and to mathematics in general. The actual forms of our numbers, zero through ten, are taken directly from Arabic script! Think about how important ones and zeros are to the digital age. So this memorial would tell the story of Islam’s achievements in mathematics during their golden age. These mathematical achievements were adopted by Europe several hundred years later and made a big difference in the development of capitalism in Italy, and in Western civilization in general. Numbers (Arabic numbers) are the world’s only universal language, and now is the perfect time to thank Arabians and restore some of their pride as a people through this memorial.

I have a beautiful design for the memorial (the attached image is only a placeholder) that combines traditional Islamic architectural motifs with sacred geometry and some high-tech elements for a stunning appearance. Inside the open air memorial there would be exhibits informing visitors about the accomplishments of great Arabic mathematicians, such as Al-Khwarizmi.

From a cultural standpoint, the developed world can now help the evolution of Islamic civilization by showing respect and gratitude. A memorial such as this would thus help to heal the animosity that is an ongoing threat to peace, reducing the anti-American resentment that is so prevalent in the Middle East. Just as the Vietnam War memorial provided cultural healing for America, this memorial could help heal the “internal wounds” and restore some much-needed dignity to the Iraqi people, and to Islam in general. This kind of project can also contribute to the reduction of violence and the recruiting of terrorists. Although food, medicine, security, and investment are all needed, we can’t ignore the “internal” cultural side of the problem either. Now that we have torn down the memorials to Saddam Hussein, we need to replace them with something positive—now that we have removed the dictator, we need to restore hope. And it is through symbolic gestures such as this memorial that hope and morale can be restored. This could also generally benefit international relations between Islam and the West, which would ultimately redound to the benefit of Americans.

Initial Steps to implementing this idea include the architectural rendering (CAD drawings and model making) for the memorial, as well as the collection of contents for the educational exhibits. Prior to actual construction, we could create a “virtual tour” of the memorial’s design, viewable on-line. This would build support and help in the organization of a diplomatic mission to Iraq to secure the cooperation of the Iraqi government and find an appropriate site for the memorial to be constructed.

The optimal outcome would be that the memorial would become a symbol of pride for Iraqis. Similar to the way the Statue of Liberty (a similar gifted memorial) has become a symbol of pride for America. Measurements of success would include international media coverage of the memorial, both in its idea phase, in its construction phase, and ongoing thereafter. Success could also be measured by opinion polls of Iraqi people in their attitudes toward America and the West, and by the state of long term relations between the U.S. and Iraq. Once we raise initial seed capital, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Foundation could be set up to receive the additional money needed and administer the creation of the project. If you would like to help with this project, send me an email: steve@stevemcintosh.com

 

Writing for AQAL Journal

Back in 2005, the Integral Institute inaugurated The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (the "Journal"), which claimed to be a peer-reviewed academic-style journal. I was somewhat skeptical at first because I suspected that submissions would be required to conform to strict Wilberian orthodoxy, and that the "peers" who did the reviewing would be limited to Integral Institute insiders. However, when I attended the Integral Theory in Action conference at John F. Kennedy University in August, I found that the integral academic milieu was developing a healthy independence. Moreover, I could see that Sean Esbjörn-Hargens was working closely with the Journal to ensure its integrity and academic credibility.

Then, shortly after the conference, Australian integral theorist Mark Edwards sent me a paper he had written (which was soon to be published in the Journal) which critiqued “Appendix B” of my book, Integral Consciousness. Appendix B, entitled: “Consideration of Wilber’s Four-Quadrant Model of Evolution,” expressed my concerns about the AQAL model’s integration of human artifacts into the timeline of evolutionary development. Appendix B thus offered a critique of the quadrant model, which I hoped would spark a scholarly debate about the issues raised.

After reading Edward's critique of my critique of Wilber's model, I inquired with the Journal to see if they were interested in publishing my response to Edwards. They said they were indeed interested and (if I could move fast) they could squeeze it into the same issue in which Edwards's paper was due to appear. When I asked about the "peer-review" process, Esbjörn-Hargens explained that "JITP publishes dissenting voices. The only thing you have to tend to in this context is that you present integral theory's view on these matters correctly. As long as the theory/AQAL is represented accurately then you can go to town critiquing all you want."

So based on these assurances, I wrote the article "Problemitizing Interobjectivity: A Response to Edwards." After turning in the first draft, I received constructive feedback from Esbjörn-Hargens and doctoral student Zachary Stein, who served as the peer reviewers. Then once I had revised the paper to incorporate their comments, it was sent to Ken Wilber, who apparently reads (and vets) every paper published by the Journal. As a last hurdle prior to acceptance for publication, I was asked to join a conference call with Wilber and the other editors to discuss my paper. Given that Wilber has not always taken criticism very well, I didn't know what to expect on this phone call, having not spoken to him directly since 2003. However, I was pleasantly surprised by our conversation. While not agreeing outright with all my critiques, Ken acknowledged that I had some valid points and that the theoretical problems of interobjectivity and artifacts are "what smart people should be thinking about." The call ended on a positive note and I was not required to revise any of my critiques. I did, however, add an endnote that reflected some of the nuances of our discussion.

Pointing out the shortcomings of Ken Wilber's quadrant model is obviously not the main thrust of my work. But I was glad to make a contribution to the academic world of integral scholarship. So if you subscribe to the Journal, look for the forthcoming "Edwards and McIntosh debate," which will be published at the end of the year. Once the Journal issue is out for a while, perhaps I can get permission to reproduce it here on my website.

Overall, I'm very glad to see that integral philosophy is slowly gaining academic legitimacy. However, we still have a long way to go before this new philosophy of evolution is appropriately recognized by the more elite circles of academia. And ultimately, no matter how much scholarship we accumulate, it may be folly to expect that the cautious and conventional professionals who guard the gates of mainstream academic legitimacy will ever be willing to validate our transcendence of their way of thinking.

 

Travels in California

For the past few weeks I’ve been traveling in California in connection with my Integral Philosophy work. My trip included an invitational event at Deepak Chopra’s center in Carlsbad, a talk at the new Santa Monica Center for Integral Living, a talk in Berkley at Bay Area Integral, and a variety of presentations at the Integral Theory Conference at John F. Kennedy University. I finished the trip with a weekend at Esalen on the Big Sur coast where I gave a workshop on Integral Consciousness. This post includes brief comments on the highlights.

Evolutionary Leaders at the Chopra Center

This event was attended by some of progressive spiritual culture’s most prominent thinkers and activists (named in my last blog post). As you can imagine, it was difficult to accomplish concrete outcomes with forty outspoken postmodernists in a room together, but we did agree to work on a “declaration of conscious evolution” document, which is still being circulated by email prior to finalization. For me, the best part of the event was the personal connections I made with Jean Houston, Marianne Williamson, Peter Russell, Bruce Lipton, and Deepak himself. Although the integral perspective was well received, there was a clearly discernable difference between the participants who were “exit green” and those who remained embedded within the postmodern worldview. I did make the point that the best way for progressive spiritual culture to persuade modernists to adopt postmodern values and concerns is for postmodernists themselves to “become the change” and demonstrate their own evolution by adopting the integral worldview. I emphasized how the often anti-modern sentiments of postmodernism represent a hindrance to the important project of moving America’s center of gravity forward in history. Overall, I think that there were good integral seeds planted at this weekend event and I look forward to working with this group into the future.

Integral Theory Conference

The long-awaited integral theory conference at JFK University was very exciting and rewarding. The sold-out event was attended by over 500 people, with at least 300 more on the waiting list. It was the really first time that a good portion of the integral movement could “see each other,” and the connections that were made helped to solidify and expand the intersubjective entity of the integral worldview. My presentation on Integral Politics and Global law was well-attended and well-received, and I also participated on two panel discussion: “Does Integral Theory = Ken Wilber” and “Integral Politics.” The Integral Theory panel, which included Sean Hargens, Allan Combs, Bill Torbert, Sean Kelly, Bonny Roy, Mark Edwards, and myself, was electric — the room was filled to overflowing with over 200 people and the questions were excellent. However, I sensed a lack of cohesion among the panelists about whether the integral worldview is really the next historically significant stage of human history — what comes after postmodernism — or simply an interesting “meta-theory.” I argued for the former, but I’m more of an activist than an academic. The Integral Politics panel was attended by about 40 people, and it also resulted in some lively discussion. As with the Chopra Center event, for me the highlight of the conference was the personal connections I established and the general exchange of subtle energy among the participants.

Esalen Workshop

I was moved and impressed by my first visit to Esalen. The beauty of the ocean and the rugged cliffs of the Big Sur coast, together with the venerable pedigree of this pillar of postmodern culture, gave the place the aura of a sacred site. My workshop was held in the “Maslow room”(auspiciously), and although I worked hard to give my attendees a fulsome experience of integral consciousness, I also had time to soak in the delicious sulfur hot springs just above the waves with my wife, Tehya, and two-year-old son, Peter, who thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

The integral worldview is blossoming all over California and it was a real pleasure to return to my native state and share my work with so many enthusiastic people.

 

Gathering of Evolutionaries at the Chopra Center

Thanks to the help of Gerard Senehi and Carter Phipps, I’ve been invited to a special event at the Chopra Foundation in Carlsbad, California on July 26 and 27. This event is described as a “gathering of thirty evolutionary visionary pioneers whose radical new ways of thinking and interpreting human experience have expanded our knowledge of evolving consciousness and its impact on the way we lead our daily lives and respond to world issues.” Other participants include Brian Swimme, Jean Houston, Marianne Williamson, Michael Beckwith, Duane Elgin, Barbara Marx Hubbard, and of course, Deepak Chopra. The event is designed to help us “evolutionaries” coordinate our mutual efforts and otherwise get to know each other better. In furtherance of this social goal, we’ll be having dinner at the home of Dr. Chopra and his wife Gita on Saturday night.

As a newcomer to the marketplace of ideas, I’m obviously pleased to be invited, but I’m not sure how the “subversive” nature of the integral worldview will be received by these leaders of postmodernism. In anticipation of the event, the organizers asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire about “the great shift” that is occurring. So I provide one of my answers, below, as a preview of the position I’ll be taking at this gathering:

Question: How could this collective coming together of leaders be most instrumental in bringing public awareness to the great shift that is occurring?

Answer: First, we could demythologize the idea of “the great shift”, recognizing that there is not just one shift, there are actually many shifts in consciousness going on simultaneously in the world—a shift from pre-traditional to traditional in Africa, a shift from traditional to modern in Asia, and in America, and ongoing shift from modern to postmodern, as well as the beginning of a shift from postmodern to integral.

We could also be more discerning about the nature and behavior of cultural evolution, and recognize the fallaciousness of the wishful thinking that expects that the world is going to “wake up” and suddenly become “cultural creative” in a miraculous transformation.

Progressive culture has already made significant progress in the fight for human rights; through the progress it has made in raising our society’s concern for the environment; and in the way that American culture has now become more tolerant of alternative lifestyles and more conscious of the values of spiritual pluralism. Although there is obviously much more work to be done in these areas, when we compare our current national culture to the state of American culture in the 1950s, it appears that evolution has been achieved through the rise of progressive postmodernism. And this postmodern worldview is continuing to actively develop and persuade people about the importance of its issues and concerns. Yet there are also signs that this worldview is no longer showing the same creative vitality and dynamism that characterized its emergence in the 1960s and its consolidation in the 1990s. Postmodern culture is growing, but there are many signs that in this decade it is growing at a decreasing rate than its rate of growth in the 1990s.

Thus, at the current rate of growth it may actually take generations before the majority of the American body politic becomes conscious enough to effectively deal with our environmental crisis and create the kind of moral society that spiritual progressives envision. And just scolding people, just admonishing them to care more and be more responsible is not going to produce the results we need. The pace at which our global problems are increasingly becoming “more local” requires that spiritual progressives find a way to become more effective at raising consciousness—and this is where the integral perspective can be of great assistance.


I’ll post a follow-up blog entry in August to recount my experience of this auspicious meeting.