1

PARADIGMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS Questions 1 to 10

Moses Silbiger Graduate School of Holistic Studies John F. Kennedy University, Pleasant Hill, CA

June 2006

2 1) What are paradigms? How are they formed, maintained and changed? Paradigms are basically inner lens from which we can see the world. They are responsible for a whole range of perceptions, beliefs, worldviews and ideas that we interpret as being our inner and outer real experiences. Paradigms mold and map both who we are (mostly at the level of the ego) and how do we think, feel and behave in the world. Indeed, according to Kuhn, who first introduced the concept of paradigm, paradigms are mental modelsthat shape everything [we] think, feel, and do. How scientists [and ourselves] perceive and interpret experience is shaped by their [and our] internal structure of beliefs and concepts (Breton, 1996, p. 1). As Breton (1996) explains in the book The Paradigm Conspiracy, paradigms usually are formed from the basis of some specific consensual model or map of reality (like Newtons or Einsteins maps and models) that weaves together theories, standards, and methods in a way that makes better sense than anything else (p.2). Once chosen and maintained, they start to act as operational systems in the background of our personal, interpersonal and collective worldviews as a culture and society. For most individuals the paradigms become an invisible pattern that shapes all their perceptions. In order for a paradigm to work, it needs to be in tune and harmony with the external environment, due to the fact that its main practical use is to provide a model of reality good enough to provide a basis of clear understanding, survival and growth for the people who uses it, consciously or automatically speaking. As long as the paradigm accomplishes those main tasks, it can flourish as a valid and useful paradigm. But in the moment it fails to provide such basic functions, the paradigm goes to some kind of crisis and starts to be increasingly questioned about its own validity and practicality. In this way, one of the first steps to change the already problematic paradigm is to acknowledge its existence; in other

3 words, to bring it to the foreground were it could be seen and observed for what it is. At the same time, once a paradigm is not mirroring reality in a reasonable way (and is creating more problems that solutions), new paradigms often tend to appear in order to complement and fulfill the gaps of the older one, and sometimes promote a total revolutionary view about reality. In a critical moment of paradigm transformation or turning point, a very intense tension between paradigms can exist. They way to really accomplish a complete paradigm transformation often involve moments of chaos and disturbances between the old and the new paradigm. But once the old paradigm is really brought into awareness and its limitations and distortions are cleared perceived by a critical number of people, the new paradigm gradually starts to be naturally conceived as the consensus and the norm. As its acceptance increases and it reaches some kind of plateau, new and unprecedented crisis may appear. Consequently, a new paradigm may be already waiting to unfold, as reality (and its interpretation and understanding) is always in constant process of development and evolution 2) What is postmodernism? What is its main potential weakness? How does it allow for the inclusion of additional paradigms? Postmodernism basically constitutes a relatively recent paradigm. As always, it tries to solve a critical crisis coming from the previous modern paradigm. It come to counteract the modern view, as Wilber (1996) says,that knowledge consists basically in making maps of the world (p.59), leaving the mapmaker out of the picture. In general, postmodernism basically came to attack the limitations of the modern paradigm, arguing fiercely against a single map supposed to represent one single final reality and truth. The great postmodern realization, as Wilber (1996) says, is that neither the self nor the world is simply pregiven, but rather they exist in contexts and backgrounds that have a story, a development (p.60). The potential weakness of this

4 paradigm, a weakness that already show traces of a critical crisis that requires the formulation of a post-postmodern paradigm, is that in deconstructing the notion of a pregiven reality, it can take two distorted routes. As Wilber (1996) points, one route moves toward extreme constructivism, which means that all worldviews are arbitrary and simply manufactured by the culture. This distorted concept end up flattening all notions of an underlying and unifying truth related to the reality as a whole, as well as a notions of an existent natural hierarchy of values, from less to more qualitative/complex/evolved/developed aspects of reality. In this way, it ends up being a form of nihilism that ignore the existence of any absolute truth in the Kosmos. It tends to make everything relative and restricted to man-made conceptions of an infinite relative reality. According to Wilber (1996), the main fallacy here is that worldviews just arent that arbitrary; they are actually constrained by currents in the Kosmos, and those currents limit [italics by author] how much a culture can arbitrarily construct [a paradigm]. The other route is what he calls moderate construtivism (p.63), which considers that the world and worldview are not altogether pregiven, but rather develop in history (p.63). This approach has a more developmental and evolutionary tone into it, but still doesnt cling to an absolute truth. Instead, it follows some kind of developmental truth that governs a not so quite clear evolutionary pattern of the Kosmos. Following this explanation, the way that the postmodernism in both routes allows for the inclusion of new paradigms becomes clear. First, in the extreme constructivism, postmodernism allows all paradigms to coexist at the same time, with no precedence of true whatsoever to any paradigm. The irony is that by doing this, it invisibly allows its own extremely relativistic paradigmatic view to be above all and more true than the others. Secondly, in the case of the moderate constructivism postmodern view, new paradigms can be

5 allowed as long as they prove to be more evolved and hence more fit to the description of unfolding realities than the older ones, which cant embrace due to their natural limitations. 3) How does Brian Swimmes cosmology differ from scientific materialistic cosmologies? The cosmology of Brian Swimme (1992) basically differs from the previous materialistic cosmologies in a way that it brings a sense of aliveness, purpose and quality to the cosmos itself. Instead of considering the universe as a clock machine which is basically closed, cyclical and already set up in its entirety, he envisions a cosmos that is full of dynamism and space for continuous evolution. A universe that is full of life to its brim. A universe, which started from a single unifying point that unfolded form the emptiness, and unfolded (and continues to unfold) in a succession of developmental layers that reflect an increasing of both material and consciousness organization and complexity. In his view, the human being is not an alien other that observes reality and nature from a totally detached standpoint, and basically explores it for its own gains. Instead, he see the human being as being a total interdependent part within the cosmos, maybe the most complex and organized part we know until this day, but still an integral part impossible to be separated from the whole. In terms of space and time, his relativistic view differs radically from the previous absolute materialistic cosmologies. According to him, the originating power [that] gave birth to the universe fifteen billion years agois not simply located there at that point of time, but is rather a condition of every moment of the universe, past, present and to come (Swimme, 1992, p.44). The universe is expanding in all directions, and this same expanding perspective can be paradoxically perceived from every single location or point of reference in the universe - which, in other words, can be considered as the origin point of creation itself. As explained, Swimmes (1992) qualitative and alive view about the cosmos brings a total new paradigm to confront (or expand) the old

6 worldview about the creation, evolution and dynamics of an unrealistic impersonal, mechanistic and soulless cosmos. 4) Describe quantum holism. Give two ideas/concepts from quantum theory and describe how they might be used to undercut the scientific materialistic and deterministic aspects of the modern/dualistic paradigm? Quantum holism comes from a new paradigm based on quantum theories from Physics to support a new view and interpretation of reality. Because those theories bring a whole set of radical changes to the way we perceive ourselves and the world around us, quantum holism provides a new paradigm which challenges the very roots of mechanistic/dualistic paradigms. It presupposes a world where there is no fundamental duality between beings and events; where everything is interconnected and reflects into everything else; where the so called material world is not so material anymore; and where fixed and solid laws, beings and events are just statistically higher patterns among an arena of infinite probabilities. One of the ideas/concepts from quantum theory is the idea of quantum leaps. As Zohar (1994) describes Niels Bohr findings, in a stable atom, each of the electrons is at home in a particular orbit, depending on the energy with which its circling is associated. But strange things begin to happen when the atom becomes unstable [for no apparent reason] when its internal energy patterns begin to shift (p.49). These strange things are related to the lack of causes for events in quantum reality. They just happen In the case of electrons, they just change orbits in discontinuous jumps or quantum leaps associated to some kind of unknown probability, but never from something really determined, clearly measurable and preventable; as the materialistic/deterministic paradigm used to believe about the physical universe.

7 Another idea is the quantum idea of how the observer and the observed phenomena are part of the same non-dual reality, where there is no place for an observer totally detached from an absolute objective phenomenon as in the dualistic/materialistic view. The uncertainty principle coming from quantum physics says that many (or even infinite) possibilities related to any event can exist at the same time in the universe, but the moment of the observation of the event per se (when an observer is put into the picture), is what makes the many possibilities collapse into a single reality. This principle was proven by Physics by observing the mysterious behaviors of photons, which can behave either as waves (infinite possibilities), or as particles (collapse of the wave into a single possibility), depending on the type of measurement or observation used in the scientific experiment. 5) How does Lemkow define (living) open and closed systems? According to Lemkow, what qualities do Living Systems manifest? Basically, closed systems are systems that manifest entropy, which is a law based on the second principle of thermodynamics that states that disorder must increase owing to irreversible processes (Lemkow, 1990, p.113). This means that in closed systems, a natural and irreversible process of decay and waste is prone to happen, with the system having so chances whatsoever to sustain a state where this could be somewhat stabilized or changed. On the other hand, open (or living) systems are systems where there is not only entropy production due to irreversible processes but also entropy transport due to the import of matter as potential carrier of free energy or negative entropy (p.113). In other words, by exchanging matter with the environment, open (living) systems can evolve and develop in direction of growth and life, which brings as a byproduct toll the entropy (decay and death) of other beings who support the negative entropy of the former. In regards to their qualities, living systems manifest such characteristics as (among

8 others): (1) Self-organization (A constant internal management of balance and regulation, in spite of a dynamic and non-balanced state of constant chemical and thermodynamic changes; (2) Exchanging matter with the environment; (3) Having a far-from-equilibrium state according to the laws of thermodynamics, where a state of equilibrium means a condition where entropy and decay is the final result from the waste and expenditure of all the available energy. 6) How does Ken Wilber define and explain the Integral Paradigm? What is the difference between holistic and Integral paradigms? In my view, Ken Wilber defines the Integral Paradigm as being a paradigm that integrates and encompasses various perspectives (territories of knowledge) and holarchical/evolutionary levels of reality. Basically, he divides these various perspectives into four quadrants, where a different type of holarchy (or holistic sequence) composes each one. According to him, these four types of holarchies are actually dealing with the inside [italics in original] and outside [italics in original] of an holon, in both its individual [italics in original] and collective [italics in original] forms (Wilber, 1996, p.73). These four different and complimentary perspectives compose the Integral Paradigm in this way: 2 Internal perspectives (I and We), and 2 external perspectives (It and Its). They also correspond to self (I), culture (We), and nature (It and Its). Each perspective is composed by levels of holarchical complexity and inclusion, in a scale of continuous integration, development and evolution. As for a human being for example, this scale could be exemplified by the integration and development of body, mind, soul and spirit. As more perspectives and holarchical/evolutionary levels of reality are taken into consideration (in relation to any observable phenomena), more accurate, inclusive and real is ones perception and understanding about it. Consequently, more efficient, integrated and

9 healthy ones actions and behaviors tend to be when based in the Integral paradigm view. The basic difference between the holistic and the Integral paradigm lies in the transcending, broad, all-inclusive and more differentiated aspects of the latler. The holistic paradigm acknowledges that reality is also composed by holarchical/evolutionary levels of reality, but does not quite differentiate these levels in four different quadrants or territories. As Wilber (Wilber, 1996) says, the four quadrants represent four very different types [italics in original] of holarchieseach holarchy in each groupdealing with the same territory, but overallfour territories so to speak (Wilber, 1996, p.73). Also, the holistic paradigm does not give much emphasis in the importance and value of vertical growth as the Integral paradigm does. The holistic paradigm tends to acknowledge such hierarchies, but at the same time does not give them a proper judgment of value/worth in regards to their natural hierarchical and vertical status. Because of that, the holistic paradigm (although with the best of intentions), ends up mixing different and not mixable aspects of reality, equalizing the intrinsic value of different levels. It mixes or agglutinates (more than inter-connecting) internal with external holons, and collective with individual holons. In this way, it tends to be limited in relation to the Integral Paradigm, by being not so precise and effective in the grasp of an interconnected but multi-quadrant-level reality. As Wilber points, one of the limitations that results from the holistic paradigm (and also from the postmodern) is represented by what he calls flatland, which is a reduction of different levels and/or the four quadrants of reality into one mixed all-inclusive quadrant (generally the Its). This flatland fallacy can result in a whole series of paradoxes, inconsistencies and bugs in the holistic system, which fails to adequately grasp a bigger picture of reality (more differentiated and naturally hierarchical in terms of value/worth), due to its very significant but still limited view. In summary, I think that the Integral Paradigm could be considered as one that

10 divides the holistic paradigm in four interdependent and qualitative-scale quadrants or territories of reality. 7) Choose a social or politic issue. Describe how this issue can be perceived from the following paradigms: modern, postmodern, holistic, and integral. In my view, the issue I chose is both social and political. It is concerned with the Global Warming issue: The planet Earth being critically heated by the overall pollution created by human beings (and industrialization processes), and the profound environmental reactions and consequences of this uncontrolled (and somewhat unconscious) actions. As discussed in class, this issue was recently addressed by Al Gores new movie The Inconvenient Truth (Guggeinhem, 2006). This issue can be perceived with more or less criticality, taking in consideration the various paradigms and its respective worldviews. Following below is my understanding on how an individual under each one of these paradigms may basically perceive this problem. Modern paradigm: I think the planet Earth is a rich source of natural and raw resources, which were put there by God or some unknown evolutionary pattern as a gift to humanity. It is up to powerful and capable human beings to explore it and use it at its most; for the overall well-being and progress of themselves first (as a reward for their best fit to survival, intelligence and efficiency), and the humanity in second (as a by product of the evolution of the former, if possible). The use of modern of science and the process of industrialization are the culmination of this admirable human progress. Although this exploration may bring some minor consequences to the environment, this progress and evolution cant stop anymore. The time to grow is now, and if we have some problem in the future, we will be able to fix it later, using the resources of our modern science. Its more important to focus in the progress and the

11 economy in this moment, than to speculate about possible future environmental problems (which are in many times mere romantic concerns of those who are marginal and resistant to the overall human progress). The planet Earth is a very big territory to explore, and its resources are gigantic, almost infinite. Our actions cant have a major impact in such a tremendous resource system. The universe and the natural system is a wonderful machine. As more as we understand this machine, more human problems can be solved by the use of modern science. Because of that we must continue its progress! Postmodern paradigm: I am sensitive to this issue of Global Warming, because I think it is a critical issue, although in my view it is kind of relative. Considering that it may possibly be a result from many (if not most) of the ideals of the modern paradigm - which is definitely flawed -we need to dig deeper and deconstruct these modern ideals in order to understand its inner flaws. Also, we need to be careful in examining the claims about this whole issue of Global Warming. After all, who is addressing it? Do they have a hidden agenda? What data are they using to make such claims? Are they accurate? As I said, I personally agree that this may be a big problem for our environment, and we all need to be very sensitive to it. We need to put down that damn old modern paradigm (which is full of fallacies, paradoxes and inconsistencies), and which those who are in the power are mostly responsible for. But I think more people need to be listened in regards to the real criticality of this problem. If it is indeed as critical as many claim nowadays, we also need to take in account different views and solutions about it. We need to be open to various perspectives in regards to the real causes and consequences of this issue, including from the ones who deny such claims. Anyway, I tend to respect peoples position whatever they may be; after all, they have the right to have their own personal stands. Reality is bigger than only one or a few relative perspectives about it. Also, as important as this issue could

12 be, there are so many other important issues to consider anyway. It is hard to define priorities in our complex, dynamic and multidimensional world. I think this is just one more of the infinite human problems we face nowadays. Everybody claims to know the absolute truth and the solution for these issues, but in the end all solutions are biased and relative, because a problem for one person may be a solution for another one. We must respect all opinions, because there is not an absolute truth. Everything is relative to the eyes of the beholder. In summary, I think that this issue of Global Warming has to be definitely addressed by the largest number of different perspectives and opinions, so we can find a multi-perspectival picture of reality [that actually tend to become aperspectival, as Wilber (1996) points] and try to do something democratic about it. We need to respect and acknowledge all views and interests. In this process of acknowledgment, we also need to be carefully sensitive to the minorities, and not let those people in the power to impose their influence and biased opinions over the less advantaged others. Holistic paradigm: I think this issue of Global Warming is very critical, and we need to do something very urgent in relation to it. Our planet is in deep danger, and so are we. All our actions are interconnected in this big web of life, which covers our wonderful blue Earth. Every one of us is somewhat deeply responsible for this problem. Although I recognize that some people can be more responsible for such harm, (mostly the ones who are in the power, either the ones who are causing it, or the ones who have the power to prevent it but are not doing a good job) we all share the same toll, but in different degrees. This differentiated set of responsibilities is due to unbalanced hierarchical and privileged positions that some people hold in regards to their social influence and decision-making power. As I said, the current critical situation of our planet (whole) caused by the Global Warming is a clear reflex of our own personal (parts) flaws

13 and behaviors, still mostly coming from old selfish, narrow, mechanistic and limited paradigms. Everything is inter-connected in our world: The whole (planet) is reflected in the parts (humans), and vice-versa. Every time someone starts to change his or her views and actions, the whole planet may be already changing itself. In the same token, the Earth is also showing reactions to our insane and toxic actions in regards to the environment (as seen by the increased number of hurricanes, storms, earthquakes, pollution, etc), which may be a reaction of balance in the midst of such unbalanced chaos. I believe these reactions may possibly make some people to become more aware about the consequence of their ignorant and selfish actions. Its time to be more worldcentric and less egocentric or ethnocentric about these whole planetary issues. After all, we are all navigating in this same blue ship that is our beloved and alive planet. Also - and not less important to point out - although the whole Global Warming issue needs urgent care, it can not be reduced to a set of simple, undifferentiated and centralized solutions. This problem is concerned to both our individual and collective perceptions and behaviors, and because of that we need to consider different and practical solutions to each one of these different realities, in order to bring effective solutions. This would better work if done through a horizontal network of multi-local and interconnected campaigns directed towards the necessary increase of human awareness and behavioral change, and not by a centralized and more vertical source of command and power. Integral Paradigm: I think this issue of Global Warming is very critical. It needs to be addressed from as many perspectives as possible, taking basically in account the four quadrants (and their respective holons and fields of knowledge) and their multi-level and hierarchical/holarchical aspects. By doing that, we can better understand both the individual (personal levels of development, beliefs and behaviors) and the collective (shared worldviews, culture and

14 paradigms as well as institutional, economical and social trends) reasons for such an urgent problem, knowing that they are all inter-connected. Also, we need to further discriminate the internal and external causes for such individual and collective behaviors, as represented by personal levels of development/beliefs vs. behaviors; shared worldviews, culture and paradigms vs. institutional (mostly corporative), economical and social trends. The solution to revert and prevent those issues is not easy and may require a lot of efforts in many levels, coming from different fields of knowledge. The appeal for change and solutions have to be carefully and strategically taken in consideration from various differentiated fields and perspectives. Among them, we need to count on: (1) the level of development/beliefs/awareness of the people who are contributing to the problem and whom we intend to address (fields of psychology and spirituality); (2) their expected behavioral and physical patterns and needs; as well as the adequate sustainable and scientific means to prevent, cope and revert the environmental pollution (fields of psychology, psychiatry, biology and chemistry); (3) their cultural development and paradigmatic background (fields of religion, anthropology and psychology); (4) their social, institutional and economical status; as well as the adequate sustainable social, institutional and economical means to prevent, cope and revert the environmental pollution (fields of sociology, technology, business and economics). For each one of these quadrants and developmental levels, different focus and solutions needs to be addressed, knowing that ultimately all of them are completely inter-connected and interdependent on each other. In other words, as one of the quadrants change, this change is reflected by all others, and vice-versa. In order to find effective solutions and bring practical changes to the whole issue of Global Warming, it is also necessary to take into consideration the hierarchical worth/value of influence of the many levels of reality (or holons) existent in each quadrant. All holons (people, culture, institutions) have the power to

15 exert different degrees of change within themselves and in the whole system, but higher holons tend to have more potential to bring broader changes. As higher a holon tend to be - represented by healthier people (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually), cultures and institutions more naturally higher it is situated within a vertical developmental scale of complexity/ value / awareness/ power / inclusiveness (when not bypassed by the use of power-force coercion or repressed unhealthy aspects). Also, as higher as they are, less quantity they tend to be, but more quality they tend to generate (more depth, less span). Because of that, these higher holons (as they transcend and include the lower ones) tend to be more effective in bringing a healthier influence both to the lower holons and the whole system. This healthy influence is mostly accomplished due to their ability of meta-vision and management (seeing bigger pictures more objectively, as well as acknowledging and balancing different and opposite views), as well as an often-privileged social/ institutional/ economical status of influence (as all quadrants tend to somewhat reflect each other, when sharing a healthy balance). In summary, I think that the problem of Global Warming could be better addressed if looked from different perspectives and managed from a more centralized and higher hierarchical influence (if naturally and healthy developed), which could be better able to direct and influence both local networks and individual campaigns for personal/ behavioral/ cultural/ social improvement, awareness and change. 8) Describe David Bohm proposal for dialogue. How does this differ from the dualistic paradigms notion of dialogue? David Bohms (1992) proposal for dialogue has some basic functional tenets, which includes features that greatly differ from the dualistic paradigms notion of dialogue. In his proposal, agreement is not necessary. He put a lot of importance on actively listening others perspectives with no bias, agendas or expectancies of defined results. It is mostly viewed as a process, not as

16 means to an end. His intention in this type of dialogue is to use it when dealing with more abstract, relational, subjective and harmonious relationship; not quite for organizational/ institutional agendas with defined decision-making processes and urgent need for resolutions. Of course it can also be used in organizations and institutions, but more in their personal / interpersonal relations aspects, which dont necessarily require definite routes of actions, deadlines and solutions. In his conception of dialogue, Bohm (1992) proposes no authoritative figure leading the dialog process; instead he advocates a horizontal and non-hierarchical perspective of mutual learning, where each participant listens and speaks without judgment or previous bias. Each speaker has to be acknowledged and respected, independently of his or her points of view. The focus of the dialog is on learning, using the whole process organically towards an improvement of knowledge and understanding in many levels; opening itself to new and unprecedented discoveries, insights and realities. In order to make the process smoother, some behavioral directions ought to be followed in order to facilitate its dynamics, like the participants avoiding cross talks and speaking even when ones buttons are pushed or triggered. One of the basic and essential aspects of Bohms (1992) dialogue is that it proposes a non-dual approach to our inner selves, to others and even to the issues being discussed. According to him, most conflicts (which are one of the main reasons the dialogue is necessary) are created by an illusory mental separation between the observer (I) and the observed (it, he, she, they, etc.), being the observed an internal or external problem or conflict. On the other hand, the dualistic paradigms notion of dialogue advocates his use mostly as a means to an end. It views the dialogue as a process of trading and negotiation, instead of an open and organic process of mutual learning. Also, it is strongly anchored in a notion of duality (I and the other), which glorifies the separate individual (Bohm, 1992, p.164). It also puts

17 different weights and values in hierarchical authorities, roles and status, which are allowed to exert different degrees of influence and power within the dialogical negotiation. 9) Choose a field of interest: education, business, politics, art, social justice, counseling, consulting, health, womens issues, etc. Imagine that you are teaching a class on the application of holistic or integral principles to this field. What principles would you choose? Prepare a one page teaching outline/handout applying these principles, and create a bibliography of at least 10 sources in that field. Prepare to share this answer in small groups on the last day of class.

(See answer in next page)

18 Class Outline I chose to work with the consulting field, applying the integral principles to it. The integral principles I would use are: The four quadrants applied to consulting: Understanding and integrating different work

realities. * Identifying blind spots, hidden problems and potential bugs in the work environment coming from the four different quadrants. * Analyzing the causes of current problems and successes from various perspectives. * Finding the best ways to make each quadrant work for the good of all: Creating a healthy, efficient and prosperous work environment. * Referring the best experts and consultants for each specific problematic area, or each area that needs further improvement. * Integrating paradoxical realities in the work environment: personal, spiritual, technological, moral, cultural, economical, environmental, institutional and social. The levels and lines of development applied to consulting: Understanding and integrating

different types of people and departments in the work environment from an Integral standpoint. * Finding better ways to create healthier and more effective relationships between company owners, employers, employees, third-party providers and clients. * Finding better ways to create more effective communication and relationships between different departments and the company as a whole. * Identifying personal strengths and weaknesses: Integrating inner capacities with outer roles. * Integrating different personal drives into common company goals.

19 * Generating higher personal, interpersonal and institutional purposes and aspirations.

References for Class Outline Beck D.E. & Cowan C.C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change. Malden: Blackwell. Cook-Greuter, S. (1999) Postautonomous ego development: its nature and measurement. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Fadiman J. (1993). Unlimit your life: Setting and getting goals. Berkeley, CA: Celestialarts. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Maslow, A. (1971) The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking. Wilber K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambala. Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambala. Wilber K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambala. Wilber K. (2003). Introduction to integral theory and practice: IOS Basic and the AQAL map. Boulder, CO: Integral Institute. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.integral institute.org Wilber K. (2005). What is integral spirituality? Boulder, CO: Integral Spirituality Center. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.integral spirituality.org

20

10) Describe your personal paradigm or worldview (for example, how do you view yourself, your interaction with others, community, success, etc.) Are there boundaries or limitations within this worldview that you would like to transcend? If so, what are they? And what tools from this course might you use to accomplish this task (i.e.; postmodernism, inner Bohmian dialogue, an integral approach, etc.)? I think my current personal paradigm and worldview is pretty much integral, mostly in the cognitive sphere. In my embodiment, I still see myself a lot in the holistic paradigm, with some hues of postmodern. The modern paradigm is kind of integrated in myself (transcended and included), although I still can see inner conflicts when my main identification shifts to the holistic or postmodern views, which tend to happen for shorter periods of time. I view myself today in a constant process of learning and development, integrating more and more the integral concepts into my own life and embodiment. I see my interaction with others taking a whole new perspective of openness, depth, mutuality and learning; where I see myself most of the times open, expanding and connecting, instead of closing, being more in the surface, contracting and disconnecting. In terms of levels in the Spiral Dynamics, I see myself going from green to yellow (teal), with glimpses of turquoise; or using Kegans orders, from 3rd to 4th , with glimpses of 5th order. Im working to develop many venues of my being (lines of intelligence), taking in equal consideration my body, mind, soul and spirit, in all 4 quadrants: personally, behaviorally/ physically, culturally/ relationships and socially/ economically. Im working to stabilize my integral worldview in a more embodied way, instead of having it in a more cognitive sphere, with embodied states of integrality, instead of stages.

21 In my current worldview, I see success more as a natural development of my healthy beingness and right action in the world, where my I has a priority in relation to my Its; in other words, I directs my Its, and not vice versa (spirituality as a priority to materialism, but one supporting each other). In terms of community, I see myself going to a more worldcentric view, being much more connected to society and community than before. I also see myself as being more stable, courageous, aware and mindful; although sometimes still sliding into short regressions into old patterns of behavior. The boundaries or limitations within my worldview that I would like to transcend are to be more stable and embodied in the Integral paradigm, working in myself and in the world and in my relationships through many venues and perspectives. I really want to kick my ass with awareness and mindfulness, so I can continue to integrate myself in a healthy way (shadows, blind spots, regressions, ignorance, etc.) and keep a good and steady pace in my general development as an integral being in an integral world. The main tools from this course that I want to keep using is continue to develop a deep and multi-level understanding of the integral approach, coupled with a better understanding of other paradigms so I can identify where I was and what I still carry (integrated or not). I really liked the Bohms dialogue and that, together with the heartful, organic & natural native worldview from indigenous tribes (when transcended and included), are two of the main practical things Im going to carry from this class. I think I was not so much into the holistic and quantum information due to the fact that the stage Im now is basically involved in embodiment, and I see little practical embodiment within those views. I really enjoyed being part of this Paradigms of Consciousness class, it definitely added into my own being in many levels. I enjoyed the participation and interaction with my peers and with my teacher, David. . Indeed, it was very pleasant to get

22 from you a good sense of balance between embodiment and theory. Thanks! Right on, the world needs more teachers like you! References

Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a system. Routledge Chapman & Hall. Breton, D. (1996). The paradigm conspiracy. Hazelden. Lemkow, A. (1990). The wholeness principle: Dynamics of unity within science, religion & society. Illinois: Theosophical Publishing House. Swimme, B. (1992). The universe story. Harper San Francisco. Tarnas, R. (1991). The passion of the western mind. Frederick Hill Assoc. Visser, F. (2003). Thought as passion. SUNY Press. Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Shambhala Publications. Woodhouse, M. (1996). Paradigm wars. California: Frog Ltd. Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (1994). The quantum society: Mind, physics, and a social vision. Harper Collins