Orientation to the ITC 2013 Paper Review Board

[Balder]

In this section of the forum, we plan to do a systematic 'deep dive' into the papers and presentations from the recent 2013 Integral Theory Conference.  We will work our way through the papers by starting with the first paper, then the last, then the second paper, then the second-to-last, and so on, converging towards the middle.  All members here are invited to read the papers and to participate in this discussion.  It is my hope that this board, as we develop it over the year with our ongoing discussions of the papers, will provide a good resource and archive for the Integral community.

Copies of the ITC 2013 papers are available for downloading here.

(Once we have several threads going, I will also use this post as a kind of "contents" page, with links to each discussion).

[Balder]

Hi, Joseph, welcome.  This board has all of the ITC paper threads that have been started so far.

[Joseph Feely]

Thanks Bruce, I had a look, I haven't actually read any discussed so far except yours which I liked alot,

Joey

[Balder]

Thank you, Joseph.  It's nice to hear you enjoyed my paper!  Please feel free to start a discussion on a paper you have read, if you would like; we've been taking this much more slowly recently, since we haven't gotten a lot of participation on these threads yet (and also since we've also been busy).  I am thinking of starting a thread on Bonnitta Roy's paper soon.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I know that I've only responded to those papers of interest to me, and not many of them are. Perhaps we'd generate more discussion if we focused only on those we really like instead of doing them all?

[Balder]

Yes, I'm open to that at this point.  Let's just take up the papers we're interested in.

[Joseph Feely]

Hi, In general this is where I'm at with the papers.

I've read Bruce's paper, Suzanne-cook Grueter's paper and I felt that I liked both because they showed that there are apsects of theory that "integral" does not cover, and that there is a culture of "faith" in Integral theory that is not based on sound reason. This issue of faith in Integral rather than a rational appraisal of Integral is something that I do not feel aligned with. I would not like Integral to become like an amber religion that people believed in yet I meet people in Integral circles and if one critically evaluates any aspect of integral theory they react or respond negatively. I feel some people aligned with integral find it difficult to see it criticised

I also have read Terri O Fallon's paper and Ramirez, O'Fallon and Fitch's paper. I found them insightful and wonder how their integration of states and stages would view peak state experiences. Can Peak experiences be integrated in their four step process. This would mean that people are able to skip structure- stages and this may be a gap in their theory that has emerged with their attempt at integration

I'm reading Tim winton's paper today and I see that there is a discussion on it up already

[Edward theurj Berge]

This forum and its predecessor have been discussing AQAL and other integral theories and practices for several years, so you'll find we've been not only appreciative but highly critical of AQAL. Or kennilingus, as I call it. As for the integration of states and stages, a few forum threads will give you something to chew on: An integral postmetaphysical definition of states; States, stages, the WC lattice and the fold. In the last thread Balder mentioned that some of this material might be discussed in the 3rd-tier spirituality panel. Since the panels don't have accessible papers (that I know of?) perhaps Balder or someone else (Mark?) that participated in that panel would like to start a thread on it in this sub-forum?

[Joseph Feely]

Thanks theurj

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Took this from the first paper (Flow of Perspectival Activity): 

With such an extensive list of barriers and factors impacting the possibility for accuracy, one might wonder why we even attempt to take perspectives in the first place. Of course, in some instances, it’s the only option. But, in potentially many others, why not bypass the process all together? With accuracy defined as the correspondence of a subject and target’s perspective on the same object dimension, perspective-seeking provides the most reliable option. Increasing the rate of perspective-seeking over taking (Dawson & Stein, 2011) might be the most viable option for positively impacting perspectival accuracy.

----

the simple version might be the way to spell assume = (makes an) ass (of) u (and) me!

Re the three main barriers to accuracy of perspective-taking, the first was clear enough. It was just the failure to even try to take another person's perspective. 

The second seemed clear to me also. I would call it "projection" because it involves projecting your own perspective onto others. Although that might get confused with projecting disowned shaddow issues that you would not normally see or "own" as being your own perspective or "where you're coming from." In the more psychodynamic sense of projecting you would, for example, see anger in others if you were repressing or disowning your own anger. Perhaps others would say you are coming from a somewhat angry perspective, but you wouldn't see that as your perspective. In that case the inaccuracy is about your own perspective.

While the article addressed the problem of inaccurately seeing others actual perspectives, it did not address the problem of not accurately seeing your own perspective! Projection in the more psychodynamic, or depth-oriented, or "vertical" sense would involve not clearly seeing that part of your own perspective because you pushed it down into the subconscious mind -- threw it into your "basement." When it comes to anger (per this example) others see "where you're coming from" more clearly than you do. Gets kind of complicated when you include shaddow issues!   

Still, a non-psychodynamic, or "flat," or "horizontal," version of "projecting" your own way of seeing things onto others seemed to what the second barrier to accurate perspective-taking involved. 

I was not clear what the third barrier meant. Overgeneralization based on not enough info about the other person? Confabulization in which you make a whole picture based on a small part (which to me is just another form of "overgeneralization"). That would be my guess. But it did not seem as clearly explained. Overgeneralization might be related to closed-mindedness (mental rigidity), lack of being able to handle complexities (simple-mindedness), or just a paucity of information. Hence the author's preference for the habit of perspective seeking over perspective taking. 

   Interesting thoughts about perspective taking skills. I encountered the term "perspective-taking" as one of five main factors that psychologists Platt and Spivack discerned regarding the overall skill called "interpersonal cognitive problem solving." The ability to anticipate the perspective of others aided in solving problems involving other people. As I recall it was not equated with empathy, just the ability to anticipate where the other person was coming from. Not necessarily to feel what they feel (although I suppose that might provide additional info, as long as you didn't allow the feelings to overshadow other types of information -- trouble with feelings alone is that they might be one of those projections I talked about earlier, how you would feel if in that situation, not necessarily how the other person -- "target" or "object" -- feels). Even, perhaps especially, a good sociopath can accurately assess another's perspectives. But that doesn't mean he or she gives a damn about those perspectives. It just means that the accurate perspective-taking can be used to effectively manipulate the other person ("target" or "object"). Sometimes effective manipulation works for the good of all. Sometimes it don't. Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!  

   I only got half or two thirds through that first paper. Will try to tackle the rest later. 

Thanks for the thought-provoking links. 

darrell

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Taking

I said "Your views are not like mine,

but if I want, I'll take 'em."

You said "Leave them alone or else...

because you'll only fake 'em!" 

Like a bra, the object of the "taking" 

is to lift and separate --

to ferret out the formulas

subject to debate. 

The goal of multi-perspectivism

is to find a vantage point

where we can accomplish something more 

than to sit and smoke a joint! 

© 2014 Darrell Moneyhon

Darrell R. Moneyhon said:

Took this from the first paper (Flow of Perspectival Activity): 

With such an extensive list of barriers and factors impacting the possibility for accuracy, one might wonder why we even attempt to take perspectives in the first place. Of course, in some instances, it’s the only option. But, in potentially many others, why not bypass the process all together? With accuracy defined as the correspondence of a subject and target’s perspective on the same object dimension, perspective-seeking provides the most reliable option. Increasing the rate of perspective-seeking over taking (Dawson & Stein, 2011) might be the most viable option for positively impacting perspectival accuracy.

----

the simple version might be the way to spell assume = (makes an) ass (of) u (and) me!

Re the three main barriers to accuracy of perspective-taking, the first was clear enough. It was just the failure to even try to take another person's perspective. 

The second seemed clear to me also. I would call it "projection" because it involves projecting your own perspective onto others. Although that might get confused with projecting disowned shaddow issues that you would not normally see or "own" as being your own perspective or "where you're coming from." In the more psychodynamic sense of projecting you would, for example, see anger in others if you were repressing or disowning your own anger. Perhaps others would say you are coming from a somewhat angry perspective, but you wouldn't see that as your perspective. In that case the inaccuracy is about your own perspective.

While the article addressed the problem of inaccurately seeing others actual perspectives, it did not address the problem of not accurately seeing your own perspective! Projection in the more psychodynamic, or depth-oriented, or "vertical" sense would involve not clearly seeing that part of your own perspective because you pushed it down into the subconscious mind -- threw it into your "basement." When it comes to anger (per this example) others see "where you're coming from" more clearly than you do. Gets kind of complicated when you include shaddow issues!   

Still, a non-psychodynamic, or "flat," or "horizontal," version of "projecting" your own way of seeing things onto others seemed to what the second barrier to accurate perspective-taking involved. 

I was not clear what the third barrier meant. Overgeneralization based on not enough info about the other person? Confabulization in which you make a whole picture based on a small part (which to me is just another form of "overgeneralization"). That would be my guess. But it did not seem as clearly explained. Overgeneralization might be related to closed-mindedness (mental rigidity), lack of being able to handle complexities (simple-mindedness), or just a paucity of information. Hence the author's preference for the habit of perspective seeking over perspective taking. 

   Interesting thoughts about perspective taking skills. I encountered the term "perspective-taking" as one of five main factors that psychologists Platt and Spivack discerned regarding the overall skill called "interpersonal cognitive problem solving." The ability to anticipate the perspective of others aided in solving problems involving other people. As I recall it was not equated with empathy, just the ability to anticipate where the other person was coming from. Not necessarily to feel what they feel (although I suppose that might provide additional info, as long as you didn't allow the feelings to overshadow other types of information -- trouble with feelings alone is that they might be one of those projections I talked about earlier, how you would feel if in that situation, not necessarily how the other person -- "target" or "object" -- feels). Even, perhaps especially, a good sociopath can accurately assess another's perspectives. But that doesn't mean he or she gives a damn about those perspectives. It just means that the accurate perspective-taking can be used to effectively manipulate the other person ("target" or "object"). Sometimes effective manipulation works for the good of all. Sometimes it don't. Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!  

   I only got half or two thirds through that first paper. Will try to tackle the rest later. 

Thanks for the thought-provoking links. 

darrell

[Edward theurj Berge]

In a recent FB post I linked to that now infamous, classic integral essay "Giving guns to children." I've been searching for articles on an integral ethics and found this list from the '13 ITC conference, which has a presentation by Sean Kelly on a complex-integral ethics. And yet I cannot find it in the '13 ITC academic papers. Anyone know why this is?

[Edward theurj Berge]

Update: I did find Kelly's presentation on YouTube here. The blurb on it follows:

This talk is a contribution to what I hope will be a more sustained dialogue between the project of integral theory founded by Ken Wilber and the method (or "Way") of complexity initiated by Edgar Morin. The focus for this portion of the dialogue is an inquiry into the nature of the ethical, with the assumption that such an inquiry can assist us in becoming more responsible participants in this most critical phase of the Planetary Era, the challenge of which can be understood as ethical to the core. Following a brief consideration of the idea of the Planetary Era, along with some preliminary thoughts on the nature of the ethical and its relation to theory in general, and to the project of integral theory in particular, I will explore several areas of conceptual overlap, complementarity, and creative tension in the proposals put forward by Wilber and Morin. These areas include: 1. a characterization of modernity in terms of a necessary differentiation and subsequent dissociation of constitutive elements (Wilber's "Big Three" of I, We, It; Morin's trinity of individual, society, and species). 2. the postulation of a fundamental ethical principle (Wilber's "Basic Moral Intuition" and Morin's notion of "re-liance"); 3. a multi-dimensional view ethical praxis with a focus on the transformation of individual consciousness; and 4. a highlighting of the evolutionary primacy of love.