ITC 2015

[Balder]

Meta-Integral has just sent out the call for papers for the upcoming 2015 Integral Theory Conference.  The theme for the conference is Integral Impacts: Using Integrative Metatheories to Catalyze Effective Change.

See here for details.

[DavidM58]

In my enthusiasm for Tim's essay, I left out saying anything about what else appears in the latest ILR, which I'm pleased to say includes the publication of my ITC paper, "Patterns for Navigating the Transition to a World in Energy Descent."

Also Jeremy Johnson's extended article about Elza Maalouf's ITC 2015 keynote presentation, a video of Sean Hargen's opening presentation, Alia Aurami's report about the new Enlivening Edge website for "Next-Stage" organizations, and much more.

BTW, regarding the ITC 2015 papers, Meta-Integral re-uploaded final versions of the papers a couple of weeks ago.  So you might want to re-download (from this page) to get the best versions with typos hopefully corrected, etc.  In my paper you'll even find a whole new appendix (Appendix E) that includes some material that I added for my powerpoint presentation.

[Ambo Suno]

Nice review of Tim Winton's above - good to be reminded of "Pattern Dynamics", something for me to delve into as we move ahead. And his agenda makes plenty of sense to me.

Thanks for the update on the papers, including yours.

DavidM58 said:

In my enthusiasm for Tim's essay, I left out saying anything about what else appears in the latest ILR, which I'm pleased to say includes the publication of my ITC paper, "Patterns for Navigating the Transition to a World in Energy Descent."

Also Jeremy Johnson's extended article about Elza Maalouf's ITC 2015 keynote presentation, a video of Sean Hargen's opening presentation, Alia Aurami's report about the new Enlivening Edge website for "Next-Stage" organizations, and much more.

BTW, regarding the ITC 2015 papers, Meta-Integral re-uploaded final versions of the papers a couple of weeks ago.  So you might want to re-download (from this page) to get the best versions with typos hopefully corrected, etc.  In my paper you'll even find a whole new appendix (Appendix E) that includes some material that I added for my powerpoint presentation.

[Balder]

Yes, thank you for the review of Tim's report, David - and congratulations on the publication of your paper.  :-)  I look forward to checking out your revised version with the new appendix.

[DavidM58]

Thank you Ambo and Balder.  Tim's essay for some reason brings to mind Alfonso Montouri's piece on The Complexity of Improvisation and the Improvisation of Complexity, in which he reflects on a conference he attended in Rio de Janeiro centered on the work of Edgar Morin. 

https://www.academia.edu/168670/The_Complexity_of_Improvisation_and...

[Balder]

Meta-Integral has published a video from one of the debate panels from ITC 2015:  Does Integral Culture Have to Abandon Its Spirituality to Have a Ma...

Panelists:  Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, Mark Fabionar, Dustin DiPerna, and Terry Patten.

[andrew]

Integral has the potential to become the worlds religious mediator but only if it considers it self one among many in a multiplicity . No more of the we are so exceptional B.S. . Integral can't look like another form of only we have dibs on reality religion. What Integral would be good at is filling in the knowledge base of traditional religions . Lines of development and all that juicy stuff but never in a way that elevates Integral above anyone else . IOW's Integral won't work , IMO, unless it can remain impartial.

Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.)

Not all religions will except every tenet of I.T. but they may consider I.T. if the aforementioned were implemented . 

On whether I.T. should whore itself out to the global neoliberal capitalists? Really? Do we even need to ask that question? Look, academia sold it's soul to the money powers long ago and turned learning into debt bondage . That and turning univercities into research departments for pathological corporate interests and making a mockery out of the notion of the commons.  Integrity and serving that which is most central to human health is antithetical to todays academic structure. Am i allowed to say fuck those academic pimps? Oh, no, sorry:( Me bad .

Yeah, but go Kenny! In a new and improved integral embrace . 

Okay, maybe I'm a little hard on academia. They probably aren't that bad ; just arrested at deficient rational.

[andrew]

Here is one of thousands of links that i could post that reflect the truth in education today : 

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2014/10/neoliberalism-and-postseconda...

Okay, i'm more annoying than Henry Giroux, i get that  , but the fact of the matter is that this neoliberal model of education is a regression when juxtaposed to the general flow of human development . A  development that desires more inclusion and not less . A dialogic of equalitarian bro/sisterhood within the earths spiritual community is perferable to more pontification . We've had quite enough of that and the fact of the matter is that as we spiral downwards said pontifications preferred method of delivery will be the barrel of a gun .

If our societies developed in a healthy manner, education, health care and a basic Tiny House would be fundamental base conditions for all people . I'll continue to suggest that a two currency system would solve these problems but from what I can tell it is possible under this currency model, but quite unlikely .

The joy at the core of reality is, IMO, spoken in mythological terms : no respecter of persons, or a joy that has respect for all life  A highly developed culture would reflect this truism .

[Balder]

You don't need to lecture me on the neo-liberal (or neo-conservative!) influence on education.  I'm an adjunct faculty member and have little benefits or compensation in the current exploitative model.  But the situation on the ground, of work being done in real classrooms (despite these impositions), is a lot more complex, varied, and often valuable, than your outsider-critic's view apparently allows for.  It's easy for outsiders and anti-academics to call the work done in classrooms "empty pontification" -- but that's not my reality, nor the reality of most of my colleagues, in my school or others.  I hear from grateful students every year -- even every quarter -- about their life-changing learning and growth experiences.  Education needs serious reform, yes.  But even now, education in these institutions is going on, and it is no waste of time, in my view, to make whatever positive impacts in these present contexts that we can, even while critiquing the system (which we do) and working on alternatives.  So, this all-or-nothing question about integral modeling itself after neo-liberal capitalists (just because it is seeking an inroad into current academia) doesn't fly with me: no such proposal was being made in the debate.

[Ambo Suno]

Yes, B, I attended that panel. The mandatory debate format made the 'conversation' quite amusing at times. they all did good jobs in a challenging situation to make valid points and arguments and to keep straight faces.

Balder said:

Meta-Integral has published a video from one of the debate panels from ITC 2015:  Does Integral Culture Have to Abandon Its Spirituality to Have a Ma...

Panelists:  Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, Mark Fabionar, Dustin DiPerna, and Terry Patten.

[Balder]

We have a similar thread going on the FB IPS forum in relation to the panel discussion and Andre Marquis' written response to it.  Here is what I posted there:  

I haven't listened to the Q&A yet, but I think Terry Patten scored the most rhetorical points in the debate portion.  I agree with him that the question almost seemed to have been set up to be un-winnable (though I expect they were just going for a partial and polarized position, to generate more heat).  "Abandoning spirituality" is too stark of an option, though backgrounding some of IT's more strongly mystical and esoteric commitments certainly seems necessary for it to make significant inroads (or just to be given a hearing) in leading intellectual, educational, and policy institutions.  But given the history of IT, and its primary focuses over most of its existence, this seems unrealistic:  it doesn't seem reasonable or possible to "hide" the more controversial aspects of Wilber's legacy (including his responses to critics, his endorsements of controversial spiritual teachers, etc).  For the kind of "mission" Sean and Mark appear to be envisioning, a trojan horse approach seems preferable: a new academic model that hides its sourcing in IT and drops references to Wilber.

But there *are* "mainstream" areas where IT can make more direct contributions, and I agree with Sean that Religious Studies is one of them.  But the path there, too, is an uphill one, as currently IT isn't given much if any credibility in those circles.  Outside of academia, IT practitioners and scholars should make more effort -- as Sean also suggests -- to form dialogical and collaborative relationships with existing and emerging religious traditions (or modalities), and/or to form viable spiritual practice traditions and communities themselves.  Currently, IT inhabits mostly either 3-p/"about" or incorporative, 1-p/"as" relationships to other religious paths; strong, constructive 2-p relations have yet to be forged.  And such a move would likely give it more public visibility than it currently enjoys.

About Marquis' response to the panel discussion, I basically agree that IT often over-steps its ostensible postmetaphysical orientation to make (spiritually inspiring but scientifically untenable) pronouncements about external reality based on 1-p spiritual experiences.  This is probably not a problem on the "popular" level but it is a problem in certain circles where IT practitioners also hope to have an impact.

[DavidM58]

Balder, 

As an academic, what do you make of Sean and Mark's arguments? I haven't reviewed the video, but attended the first half of this debate live, and then later listened to the audio.  I believe it was Terry Patten's arguments that resonated most strongly with me. 

The spirituality cat is already out of the bag, and would be very difficult to stuff back in, and no one is going to be able to control the content, controversies, the inane and inartful postings as well as the important criticisms of all things "integral" and "Ken Wilber" on the internets. 

David

[Balder]

Hi, David, did you see my post immediately above (posted about two minutes before yours)?  I commented there as well that I thought Terry had the strongest argument (and had a similar reaction to yours regarding the difficulty of hiding the Wilber/Integral legacy from those who want to look).