See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353911825

Cultivating Spiritual Intelligence for a participatory worldview: The

contribution of Archetypal Cosmology

Article in Journal for the Study of Spirituality · August 2021

DOI: 10.1080/20440243.2021.1961463

CITATIONS READS

7 372

1 author:

Gianni Zappala
University of Technology Sydney
85 PUBLICATIONS 1,126 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gianni Zappala on 16 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal for the Study of Spirituality

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjss20

Cultivating Spiritual Intelligence for a participatory

worldview: The contribution of Archetypal
Cosmology

Gianni Zappalà

To cite this article: Gianni Zappalà (2021): Cultivating Spiritual Intelligence for a participatory
worldview: The contribution of Archetypal Cosmology, Journal for the Study of Spirituality, DOI:
10.1080/20440243.2021.1961463

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20440243.2021.1961463

Published online: 14 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjss20
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/20440243.2021.1961463

Cultivating Spiritual Intelligence for a participatory

worldview: The contribution of Archetypal Cosmology
Gianni Zappalà
Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Humanity finds itself in a collective liminal space between Spiritual Intelligence;
worldviews, on a trajectory from a dominant scientific materialism Archetypal Cosmology;
towards a participative worldview informed by a spiritual and archetypal intelligence;
participatory worldview;
archetypal consciousness. This paper suggests that Spiritual
Archetypal Astrology;
Intelligence (SQ), the cognitive ability to find higher meaning, Complex Adaptive Systems
value, and purpose in life through transcending rational
intelligence may help to birth and reinforce the emerging
worldview. The dominant modes of thinking embedded within
educational institutions, however, remain within the confines of
the mechanistic-materialist model. Nurturing SQ requires multiple
ways of knowing, a pedagogy based on engaging the head, heart
and accessing our inner experience and intuitive voice. This paper
identifies one recent expression of a participative worldview -
Archetypal Cosmology - that is not only consistent with post-
materialist views of consciousness but can also contribute to
cultivating and developing SQ. Archetypal Cosmology is based on
an enchanted cosmos in which the microcosm of the psyche is
reflected in the macrocosm of the universe through a mysterious
yet empirically observable planetary synchronicity. After
reviewing the key tenets of SQ and Archetypal Cosmology, the
paper: (i) highlights a correspondence between the principles of
SQ and the planetary archetypal meanings suggesting that SQ
may be a type of Archetypal Intelligence; (ii) illustrates how
Archetypal Cosmology provides another mode to cultivate SQ;
(iii) suggests that the synthesis of SQ and Archetypal Cosmology,
both multi-sensory ways of knowing that include the imaginal,
symbolic, mythical and spiritual, may help bring about new
modes of thinking to bridge the sciences and humanities.

Introduction
Worldviews matter – they provide the context for understanding the world and contain
the assumptions we hold to be true about reality. At present we stand bewildered and
disoriented in a collective liminal space ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner 1987) worldviews,
a ‘transitional era when the old cultural vision no longer holds and the new has not yet
constellated’ (Tarnas 2006, 26). The emerging worldview is a participative one that
restores a sense of sacredness and enchantment to the world, albeit of a different kind

CONTACT Gianni Zappalà gianni.zappala@uts.edu.au

© 2021 International Network for the Study of Spirituality and Taylor & Francis
2 G. ZAPPALÀ

to that which existed in previous eras. The shift is away from scientific materialism
towards an ensouled cosmos informed by a secular spiritual and archetypal conscious-
ness (Tarnas 2006; Walton 2017).
Transition periods are challenging because they tend not to occur in a linear and
logical fashion, but rather through sudden and intuitive leaps. To accept the implications
of quantum physics, for instance, the recognition that the apparent solid nature of the
material world is illusory, ‘takes a wholesale change of worldview. You can’t change
your view bit by bit to gradually experience a paradigm shift: it happens all of a
sudden … often discovered … while struggling to interpret unexpected and confounding
observations’ (Mackey 2019, 82). Kripal (2019, 12) has referred to these Promethean
flashes of insight as ‘the flip … that moment of realization beyond all linear thought,
beyond all language, beyond all belief.’ His study of phenomena that illustrate these
sudden changes in perspective, from outer to inner, from object to subject, show that
‘matter is also minded’, suggestive of a new worldview centred on the ‘epiphany of
mind as an irreducible dimension or substrate of the natural world … of the entire
cosmos’ (11–12).
These ‘flips’ are illustrative of an intuitive intelligence that goes beyond reason,
which is not irrational, but ‘supra’ rational (Mackey 2019). Traditional types of intelli-
gence, our ability to solve problems and think about them in different contexts, such as
rational (IQ) or emotional (EQ) remain insufficient to the task of enabling people to
deal with the increased change, ambiguity, and complexity of our times. This ‘supra-
rational’ thinking is part of a whole brain mode of thinking known as Spiritual Intelli-
gence (SQ), the cognitive ability to find higher meaning, value and purpose in life
through a deeper more expansive rational intelligence (Zohar and Marshall 2004;
Zohar 2016), which underpins the emerging ‘participatory spiritual worldview which
explicitly acknowledges the possibility that consciousness does not just reside in the
brain’ (Walton 2017, 26).
The dominant modes of thinking embedded within educational institutions, however,
remain within the confines of mechanistic materialism (Gidley 2008; Walton 2017). Fur-
thermore, in a self-reinforcing cycle, worldviews also give primacy to and reward
different types of intelligence. McGilchrist (2009), for example, argues that the left and
right hemispheres of the brain have radically different worldviews, and shows how the
West has become dominated by the ‘left brain’ responsible for Rational Intelligence, at
the expense of the ‘right brain’ hemisphere, responsible for more systemic and holistic
ways of thinking.
How do we move from educating ‘Newtonian thinkers’ who use their brains in a
partial, left-brain dominated way, to ‘Quantum thinkers’ who use their whole brains,
combining the skills of left and right hemispheres to facilitate the transition to, and
operate within, the emerging participative worldview (Zohar 2016)? SQ requires giving
emphasis to modes of learning that are experiential and contemplative rather than
analytical and cognitive and a recognition that skill development and intelligence does
not result solely from formal education, age-based experience or intellectual prowess.
In short, nurturing SQ requires multiple ways of knowing, a pedagogy based on engaging
the head, heart and accessing our inner experience and intuitive voice. Traditional
approaches to education primarily privilege the head and need to be balanced by
approaches that facilitate the ‘cocreative participation of all human dimensions at all
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 3

stages of the inquiry and learning process … body, vital, heart, mind, and consciousness’
(Ferrer, Romero, and Albareda 2005, 313).
This paper identifies one recent expression of a participative worldview that is not only
consistent with post-materialist views of consciousness but can also contribute to the cul-
tivation and development of SQ. With roots in depth psychology, the discipline of Arche-
typal Cosmology unites insights from classical Greek thought with the new paradigm
sciences to provide a cosmology, ontology, and methodology for engaging with the
broader spiritual transformation that is occurring while also providing a basis for the
further cultivation of SQ (Le Grice 2009). The next section summarizes key aspects of
the participative approach to SQ. This is followed by an outline of Archetypal Cosmol-
ogy, with its assumptions in the new science frameworks of systems and complexity
theory, leading to an examination of the main parallels between SQ and Archetypal Cos-
mology, particularly the correspondence between the principles of SQ and the planetary
archetypes, and how the practices associated with Archetypal Cosmology can contribute
to the cultivation of SQ.

Participatory approaches to Spiritual Intelligence

Scientific empiricist approaches to SQ draw on Gardner’s (1993, 1999) framework of
Multiple Intelligence and have focused on achieving definitional clarity through the
development and validation of self-report measures (King and DeCicco 2009; King,
Mara, and DeCicco 2012; Wigglesworth 2012).1 In contrast, participatory approaches
to SQ, which ‘understands the world to be a dynamic and open-ended living system
that is continually involved in co-creating itself, that mind and matter are necessarily
woven of the same fabric, and that therefore consciousness in some form goes all the
way down to the basic materials of physicality’ (Hartelius 2019, vi) brings together
insights from Quantum physics, Complexity Theory, Psychology and neuroscience to
understand the evolution of consciousness and the role that different types of intelligence
play in that process (Zohar and Marshall 2000, 2004; Sisk and Torrance 2001; Sisk 2008,
2016; Zohar 2016). SQ, defined as the ‘ability to access higher meanings, values, abiding
purposes, and unconscious aspects of the self and to embed these meanings, values and
purposes in living a richer and more creative life’ is a prerequisite for both IQ and EQ to
function effectively (Zohar and Marshall 2004, 3). The different types of intelligence can
function separately or together, IQ and EQ work within boundaries while SQ allows
people to change the rules and to alter situations, enabling the changing of the bound-
aries (see Table 1).
The transformative potential arises because, in a participatory world, subject and
object are both part of an interconnected living system underpinned by an undivided
cosmic consciousness, unlike the ‘rational’ intelligence born from the traditional Carte-
sian Subject/Object split. Instead, conscious observers and agents co-create reality as the
observer is always inside and part of the observed reality. This worldview restores
meaning and a sense of purpose as ‘it describes that source of the self that precedes div-
isions into mind and body, into the mental, emotional and the spiritual … it is the
1
Scientific empiricism within psychology holds that only empirical scientific methods provide valid knowledge (Hartelius
2019).
4 G. ZAPPALÀ

Table 1. Types of intelligence.

Type of Type of
capital intelligence Types of thinking Function
Material Rational (IQ) Rational (Left-brain; What I think – the intellectual intelligence used to solve
Slow; Serial) logical or strategic problems
Social Emotional (EQ) Associative (Right brain; What I feel – the intelligence used to empathize with
Fast; Parallel) someone else’s situation. Enables the adaptive response
and appropriate behaviour to different situations and
contexts
Spiritual Spiritual (SQ) Quantum (Holistic; What I am – the intelligence used to address and solve
whole brain) problems of meaning and value
Source: Adapted from Zohar and Marshall (2004); Zohar (2016).

thinking that precedes categories, structures, and accepted patterns of thought or mind
sets’ (Zohar 2016, 47–8). Whole-brain thinking, ‘synthesizes and synchronizes the mental
activity from all over the brain, including its bodily cues’ and integrates the brain’s serial
and associative systems (gamma wave activity at the 40 Hz oscillation field, most coher-
ent and effective when in deep meditation) (Zohar 2016, 65). In this view SQ is a type of
Complex Adaptive System (CAS), with meaning emerging from the dialogue between
mind and its environment (Zohar and Marshall 2004, 76–80). CAS are a particular
subset of Complexity Theory, which is concerned with the qualitative aspects of non-
linear systems and focuses on the organizational and evolutionary dynamics that occur
as complex living systems interact with each other and their environments (Probst and
Bassi 2014).
Key characteristics of CAS are the spontaneous emergence of organization, often
leading to the self-assembly of a collective structure that can adapt to the environment
in a systematic way, through vigilance, cleverness, flexibility, and creativity (Kauffman
1995). Such systems are nonlinear (feedback loops do not follow simple cause and
effect patterns); unpredictable (small fluctuations in any part can result in unexpected
and material changes); unstable (operate between order and disorder which leads to
the formation of new complex patterns through recursive feedback loops); and are less
amenable to being controlled by external actors. It is from these distinctive characteristics
of CAS that ten of the twelve principles of SQ are derived (see the first 3 columns of Table
2) (Zohar and Marshall 2004, 75–81).
Zohar and Marshall (2004, 35–60) link the SQ principles with a scale of psychological
motivations that expands on Maslow’s pyramid of needs. Positive and negative motiv-
ations, which they see as driving behaviour and thought (e.g. anger, fear, mastery) act
as ‘attractors’ for our thought patterns in a shared field of consciousness and meaning.
As a transformational intelligence, SQ, they argue, can shift people from lower motiv-
ations such as anger into higher motivations such as cooperation. The dynamics of
shift usually occur because of having to respond to an external crisis, or through the cul-
tivation of SQ, which can ‘pump energy into motivational states, and … redistribute
human energies into higher-energy motivational states (into new attractors)’ (Zohar
and Marshall 2004, 110).
The participatory approach emphasizes the ways that SQ is fostered through forms of
multisensory knowing, including the use of ‘intuition, meditation, and visualization – to
access one’s inner knowledge in order to solve problems of a global nature’ (Sisk 2008,
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 5

Table 2. The principles of SQ and the planetary archetypes.

CAS characteristic SQ principle Brief explanation
Emergent SQ1: Vision and Act from principles and
Value led deep beliefs and live
life accordingly
Self-organization SQ2: Self- Know what I believe in
awareness and value and what
deeply motivates me
Recontextualize SQ3: Reframe Stand back from the
the environment problem or situation
and look for the bigger
picture and context
Evolutionary SQ4: Celebration Value other people and
mutations of Diversity unfamiliar situations
for their differences
Averse to external SQ5: Field Stand against the crowd
control independence and maintain my
convictions
Holistic SQ6: Holism See larger patterns,
relationships,
connections. Have a
strong sense of
belonging
Order out of chaos SQ7: Positive Own and learn from
use of mistakes and see
Adversity problems as
opportunities
Bounded instability SQ8: Live in and be responsive
Spontaneity to the moment and all
it contains
In dialogue with SQ9: ‘Feel with’ and have deep
the environment Compassion empathy
Exploratory SQ10: Ask Why? Question things, get to Pluto
the bottom, criticize
the given
n/a SQ11: Vocation Feel ‘called’ to serve n/a
something larger than
myself.
n/a SQ12: Humility Have a sense of being a n/a
player in a larger
drama, of my true
place in the world
Source: Adapted from Zohar and Marshall (2004); Tarnas (2006, 2009b); Le Grice (2010).
Note: SQ1 to SQ10 were derived from the operation of CAS while SQ11 and SQ12 come from the broader literature on
spirituality.
Planetary
Archetype Archetypal meaning
Sun Vital creative energy and will to
exist; to manifest; expression and
executive functions of the self
and ego; the archetypal Hero
Moon The body and the soul; the whole
that contains the part in
potential; that which senses and
intuits; to receive and reflect
Mercury Principle of mind and thought; to
conceptualize and connect, make
sense of; translate and transmit
Venus Beauty, harmony, value; to engage
in social relations; romance and
friendships
Mars Energetic force; to defend; assert;
courageous; the archetypal
warrior
Jupiter Impulse to enlarge and grow; to
make greater wholes;
comprehensiveness and
largeness of vision
Saturn Maturity; to strengthen and forge
through tension and resistance;
adversity; learn through failure
and loss; harvest through effort
and experience
Uranus Change; rebellion; freedom;
spontaneity; lightning like flashes
of insight; innovation and
creativity
Neptune Spiritual; unitive; compassion;
dissolution of ego boundaries in
favour of healing and wholeness;
imagination
Seeing the reality beneath the
surface; the depths; intensity;
instincts
n/a
n/a

24). Several ways to facilitate the development of SQ include contemplative practices

such as meditation and journaling, experiential group processes such as Bohmian dialo-
gue and Theory U, and the use of expressive modalities such as socio-drama, storytelling,
and arts-based practices (Zappalà 2021). Working with archetypes can also foster SQ; for
instance, using the Archetypal Patterning approach developed by Conforti (1999) led to
the cultivation and development of SQ among young children with learning disabilities
(Basquez 2014).
6 G. ZAPPALÀ

Using Archetypal Patterning enabled the children to experience increased self-aware-

ness, access and use their inner knowing, and gave them a new language for engaging in
their life in a way that created meaning. The findings showed how a ‘movement from
knowledge to knowing’ and ‘known to unknown’ occurred among the children, allowing
for a process of growth and transformation which arose ‘as a result of the students’ ability
to grasp archetypal language and recognize archetypal patterns operating in their lives …
reflective of [Zohar’s] spiritual intelligence … ’ (Basquez 2014, 33, emphasis added). This
provides a segue to the next section on Archetypal Cosmology and its potential contri-
bution to cultivating SQ.

Archetypal Cosmology
The discipline of Archetypal Cosmology emerged from the seminal work of Tarnas
(1991, 2006). Multi-disciplinary in character, drawing on depth psychology, history of
ideas, philosophy, cosmology, religious studies, mythology and the new sciences, it is
perhaps one of the newest academic disciplines with the oldest intellectual roots.2 Arche-
typal Cosmology:
draws on the methodology, interpretive principles, and cosmological perspective … (of)
astrology [and] is based on an observed correspondence between planets in the solar
system and specific themes, qualities, and impulses associated with a set of universal prin-
ciples and thematic categories known as planetary archetypes’ (Le Grice 2009, 3–4).

While its core conceptual model is consistent with post-materialist understandings of

consciousness (Lorimer 2019; Walach 2020), its point of departure is the return to the
academy of a simplified, philosophically informed, sophisticated, and empirically
grounded astrological perspective. Archetypal Cosmology, Tarnas argues ‘is one of the
most compelling intimations we have that we live in a meaning-laden and purposeful
universe – a cosmos that is coherent with our deepest spiritual and moral aspirations
… [and helps] us to become more consciously co-creative participants in a cosmic
unfolding’ (Tarnas 2011a, 69), essential for the continued evolution of human conscious-
ness and spirituality.
Tarnas’s earlier Passion of the Western Mind (1991) provided a history of archetypal
thought from Plato to Jung and began the synthesis completed in Cosmos and Psyche
(2006). The existence and study of archetypes is contested as they are not visible, physical
entities, yet according to Jungian psychology, archetypes appear and act within the
human mind in ways that drive thoughts and behaviour, like ‘molecules of meaning
that fuel [the] human narrative’ of the collective unconscious (Hills 2018, 6–7).3 Arche-
typal Cosmology has melded together previous conceptions of archetypes, from the
mythic (pre-Homeric), the meta-physical (Plato), and more recently psychological
(Jung), such that archetypes now possess both a ‘transcendent and numinous quality
yet simultaneously manifesting in specific … physical, emotional and cognitive embodi-
ments’ (Tarnas 2009a, 28). They are ‘numinous formative principles and conditioning
factors existing a priori in the depths of the collective unconscious that give a thematic
predisposition and continuity to human experience’ (Le Grice 2021a, 102).
2
On the origins of Archetypal Cosmology as an academic discipline see Tarnas (2011a, 2011b); Le Grice (2009).
3
See Haule (2010) for a Jungian perspective on how developments in biology may suggest a material basis for archetypes.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 7

Tarnas (2006) situates contemporary astrology within the archetypal lineage, such that
archetypes relate to the planets and their movements and possess ‘a reality that is both
objective and subjective, one that informs both the outer cosmos and inner human
psyche’ (Tarnas 2009a, 29). Recent scholarship has confirmed the significant influence
astrology had on the development of Jung’s psychology as well as the extent to which
Jung’s psychology in turn influenced contemporary astrology (Rossi and Le Grice
2017; Greene 2018a, 2018b). The last two columns of Table 2 provide a summary of
the ten traditional planetary archetypes and their key themes and qualities.4 The Sun,
for example, corresponds to the archetypal principle of ‘vital creative energy, the will
to exist … capacity to be, to manifest … achieve, illuminate, and integrate’ (Tarnas
2009b, 37). Mercury relates to the principle of mind, thinking, conceptualizing and
sense making; Jupiter to the principle of expansion and growth and so on (see Tarnas
2009b for a summary).
At the end of his historical survey of archetypes, Tarnas articulated his participatory
perspective, an epistemology in which ‘nature’s unfolding truth emerges only with the
active participation of the human mind’ (Tarnas 1991, 434). The human psyche and con-
sciousness participate with the cosmos in shaping and creating reality, thus humans have
free will and agency and are co-participants in the way the archetypes express themselves
in events and behaviour.5 What demarcates Tarnas’s approach from previous forms of
astrology is that planetary correlations are archetypally rather than concretely predictive
(Tarnas 2006, 128). Archetypal themes and patterns are ‘multivalent’ – consistently
coherent in terms of their underlying core meaning but expressing themselves in
diverse ways. The Saturn archetype, for instance, can manifest as judgement, tradition,
depression, time, discipline, seriousness. Archetypes are also ‘multidimensional’, mani-
festing in different ways across various spheres of experience – mythically, psychologi-
cally, metaphysically (Tarnas 2006, 87, 2009a, 30–1).
Tarnas’s (2006, 50–70) cosmology also extends Jung’s theory of synchronicity, such
that the planetary movements and aspects are understood to reflect rather than cause
the archetypal patterns that unfold at any given point (Le Grice 2017a, 2017b, 96–98).
Synchronicity, a non-mechanistic or acausal meaningful coincidence between an inner
psychic experience in someone’s mind and an outer event in the real world was one of
several theories Jung countenanced as a possible explanation for the workings of
astrology (Le Grice 2017b). For Jung, ‘synchronicity is a modern differentiation of the
obsolete concept of correspondence, sympathy, and harmony’ (cited in Le Grice
2017b, 89). The planetary positions did not cause (in the modern understanding of cau-
sation) a particular psychological or archetypal state in one’s psyche, but rather corre-
sponded with it, the psyche reflecting the cosmos. Jung’s later understanding of
archetypes as ‘psychoid’ (psyche-like archetype that informed both psyche and matter)
led him to see astrology as ‘synchronicity on a grand scale’ (cited in Le Grice 2017b,
96). Tarnas (2006, 57–8) thus depicts an archetypally informed cosmic level synchroni-
city connecting the inner psyche and outer world, akin to the ancient notion of an anima
mundi, or world soul, in which the human psyche participates as a microcosm of the

4
Jung coined the term ‘planetary archetype’ to describe the meanings associated with each of the planets in astrology (Le
Grice 2017a, 40–1).
5
See Ferrer (2002) and Ferrer and Sherman (2008) for further discussion of participatory approaches.
8 G. ZAPPALÀ

whole, connected as they both emanate from the same underlying reality or unus mundus
(one undivided world).
Tarnas posits a different understanding of the relationship between mind and cosmos,
between the individual and collective mind, via a re-envisioned archetypal perspective
embedded within a non-materialist view of consciousness. He paints a cosmological
vision, outlines a technically simple methodology and provides extensive historical and
empirical evidence that demonstrates a clear correlation between planetary aspects and
cycles and the unfolding of events in human history understood through a participatory
lens. With a focus on the explication of history in relation to the hard aspects of the outer
planets, he explores the related archetypal patterns evident within similar historical
periods across different locations (Synchronic patterning) as well as archetypally
related patterns across different periods of history (Diachronic patterning) linked via a
form of cosmic synchronicity.6
While a broad acceptance for the validity of an archetypal astrological perspective,
however much informed by empirical evidence and new science frameworks, remains
contested (Le Grice 2011),7 the evidence for a non-materialist conception of conscious-
ness is harder to dismiss (Gober 2018; Walach 2020).8 Notwithstanding this, conscious-
ness has remained ‘largely ignored in research into spirituality’ due to the ‘prevailing,
often unconscious, influence of Newtonian science, which assumes consciousness to
be an epiphenomenon of the brain’ (Walton 2017, 21). Furthermore, Walton argues
that developments in quantum physics lend support to worldviews based on a secular
spirituality that countenance meaningful relationships between inner and outer
experiences of consciousness and calls for the development of research methods that
reflect this.
Valadas Ponte and Schäfer (2013), for instance, illustrate the ontological similarity and
plausibility between quantum physics and Jung’s psychology and, by extension, Arche-
typal Cosmology. Quantum science, they argue, has shown the external visible world
as ordered on ‘phenomena, which transcend the materialism of classical physics … the
basis of reality is nonmaterial’ (603). The realm of non-material forms, which is the
basis for the existence of the physical visible world, ‘makes it possible to accept the
view that the archetypes are truly existing, real forms, which can appear in our mind
out of a cosmic realm, in which they are stored’ (604). Furthermore, in the Quantum uni-
verse consciousness pervades the cosmos. Reality comprises an indivisible wholeness,
and as thoughts arise in a conscious mind, so too the appearance of thought like
forms in the invisible (yet real) cosmic realm suggests that ‘consciousness is a cosmic
property’ (605). This quantum view of a holistic reality corresponds to Jung’s archetypal
idea of unus mundus (605). In a holistic universe where everything is interconnected and
a cosmic consciousness exists, the connection between human minds with a cosmic mind
means that the former is spiritual in nature. So, too, Jung’s principle of synchronicity can
be understood through this non-empirical realm and the quantum idea of ‘nonlocality’
6
Tarnas (2006, 149–158) illustrates these patterns through examination of the alignments of the Uranus-Pluto cycle and
social and political developments.
7
Tarnas refers to astrology’s status as the ‘Gold standard of superstition’, a view he himself originally held. What seemed
like an ‘unlikely candidate’ as an explanatory framework for his then research with Stan Grof on the psychotherapeutic
role of psychedelics led him to the decades long research that culminated in Cosmos and Psyche (Tarnas 2011a; Olivetti
2015). On how Archetypal Astrology differs from other astrological approaches see Tarnas (2011b).
8
See also the reports of the Galileo Commission (https://galileocommission.org/).
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 9

(when two particles that interact and then move away from one another remain con-
nected and act as one irrespective of distance) (Sparks 2007).
Similarly, Walach’s (2017, 16) ‘Complementarity’ model of consciousness suggests
that ‘consciousness and matter [are] two equally real, equally important and irreducible
aspects of one and the same reality’. As Walton (2017, 30) observes, the implication of
this ‘dual-aspect monism’ is that ‘phenomenological experiences of mind and matter
could be complementary aspects of one underlying reality’. Furthermore:
inner phenomenological experiences (inner archetypal psyche), and our perceptions of the
external world based on our senses (astrological understanding of planetary movements),
[are] complementary representations of the same reality, with neither having more signifi-
cance than the other’ (Walton 2017, 30; italicized words added).

It is no surprise then that the insights of quantum physics and the new sciences are
central to Archetypal Cosmology. One scholar central to consolidating Archetypal Cos-
mology as a coherent academic discipline is Le Grice (2009, 2010).9 His work articulates
the underlying theoretical framework for the relationship between the archetypal
dynamics of the human psyche and the planetary order of the solar system through a syn-
thesis of ideas from depth psychology, mythology and the new paradigm sciences of
quantum physics, systems theory, morphogenetic fields and cosmology.10 These concep-
tual models share the challenging of the dichotomies between ‘subject and object, mind
and matter, nature and spirit’ and their use of holistic and organicist approaches and
methodologies to bridge these divides to suggest the undivided wholeness and intercon-
nected nature of the cosmos (Le Grice 2010, 22).
An important dimension of Le Grice’s argument is the application of Capra’s notion of
pattern (Capra and Luisi 2014) to the solar system, together with the principles of CAS
such as self-organization, emergence, holism, and the dialogue between a system (solar
system) and its environment (human psyche). This enables Le Grice to show how the
‘pattern of cyclical alignments of the planets … is actually the external structural form
of a meaningful underlying pattern of self-organization that shapes not only the visible
planetary order of the solar system but also the deeper dynamics of human experience’
(Le Grice 2010, 112). This lays the foundation for a cosmological model where the world
is a visible physical structure with its own interiority comprising a psychological struc-
ture and organization that incorporates mind, consciousness and meaning. The arche-
types are both external structural forces that work through and give impulse to
patterns of meaning within the human psyche (Le Grice 2010, 101).

Spiritual Intelligence and Archetypal Cosmology

This section outlines three points of synthesis between SQ and Archetypal Cosmology.
First is the apparent striking correspondence between the SQ principles and the planetary
archetypal meanings used in Archetypal Cosmology. As Table 2 illustrates, each of the
ten SQ principles derived from the behaviour of CAS finds a corresponding counterpart
9
Le Grice completed his graduate work with Tarnas at the California Institute of Integral Studies and is currently Professor
and Chair of Jungian and Archetypal Studies, Pacifica Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA., USA
10
New science and other influences in addition to R. Tarnas and C.G. Jung include the work of D. Bohm, F. Capra,
R. Sheldrake, B. Swimme, P. Teilhard de Chardin, S. Grof and J. Campbell. See Le Grice (2010) for references.
10 G. ZAPPALÀ

in a respective planetary archetype. For instance, principle SQ7, the positive use of adver-
sity, derived from the behaviour of CAS to create order from chaos, corresponds to the
Saturnian archetypal meaning of strength through resistance and learning through
failure and loss. The principle of Field Independence, maintaining one’s convictions
against a majority view (SQ5), derived from the fact that CAS have their own internal
order, corresponds with the Mars archetype, the courage to defend and stand one’s
ground. The principle of Holism, the ability to see larger patterns and connections
between things (SQ6), derived from the holistic nature of CAS, corresponds to the
Jupiter archetype, the impulse to enlarge and connect to a larger order.
This correspondence may be related to the fact that CAS are formative to the deri-
vation of ten of the twelve principles in the case of SQ and to the meaningful coherence
and correspondence between an external solar system and an internal psyche in the case
of Archetypal Cosmology. Nevertheless, Zohar and Marshall (2004) appear to have
unknowingly identified a form of intelligence that maps almost directly onto the histori-
cally accepted meanings of the planetary archetypes. If meaning and value are contingent
upon the archetypes, and SQ is the intelligence used to access meaning and values, then
SQ may also be an archetypal intelligence.
Second, by encompassing the corresponding archetypal meanings and how their pat-
terns manifest in individual and collective experience, we open the possibility for another
dynamic mode for cultivating SQ. The practice of Archetypal Cosmology, which is ‘sim-
ultaneously a psychological cartography, a spiritual discipline, a mode of spiritual
knowing, and a world view’ is a form of participatory knowing (i.e. multi-sensory)
leading to ‘greater conscious awareness of oneself as an archetypally informed being,
engaging in a dialogue of reciprocity with the archetypal dimension’ (Tarnas 2016, 88,
92). Archetypes are experienced through the human psyche and are reflected through
the planetary alignments and aspects of their corresponding planetary entities.11 Arche-
typal Cosmology, according to Le Grice (2010, 93) ‘gives an illuminating insight into the
underlying meaning of one’s experiences and a form of reassuring external validation
about what is happening in one’s life at any given time’, including an understanding
of growth through life-phase transitions, an appreciation of our place within a larger
inter-connected whole, and greater empathy with others. It is a vehicle that can lead
to self-awareness, personal development, and illuminate the psyche’s process of
‘individuation’.12
The role archetypes play in the process of individuation finds its counterpart in the
notion of SQ as the
soul’s intelligence … if you think of soul as that channelling capacity in human beings that
brings things up from the deeper and richer dimensions of imagination and spirit into our
daily lives … our moral intelligence, giving us an innate ability to distinguish right from
wrong … exercise goodness, truth, beauty, and compassion. (Zohar and Marshall 2004, 3)

Furthermore, SQ is an:

11
Archetypal Cosmology also focuses on archetypal complexes (the combination of themes associated with two or more
planetary aspects) that can also be used to illustrate the transformative dimension of SQ. For example, a Mercury –
Pluto aspect corresponds to a combination of SQ3 and SQ10 (e.g. having a deep understanding of an issue or commu-
nicating with great depth).
12
Jung (1969, 275) defined individuation as the ‘process by which a person becomes a psychological “in-dividual”, that is,
a separate, indivisible unity or “whole”’.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 11

innate capacity of the human brain … that give(s) us the basic ability to form meanings,
values, and beliefs … [the] soul’s intelligence, that makes us whole … puts us in touch
with the depths of our being and with the deep wells of our potentiality. It allows insights
and understanding to move from those depths to the surface of our being where we act,
think and feel’ (Zohar and Marshall 2004, 65).

Third, SQ and modes of archetypal analysis are not ways of thinking with which most
people are familiar (Le Grice 2010, 78), nor are they encouraged as worthwhile compe-
tencies in our education systems (Gidley 2008; Curry 2017; Walton 2017). Mainstream
psychology, for instance, has largely ignored SQ since Gardner (2000) chose to
exclude it as an intelligence. Similarly, in the Humanities, fostering an ‘archetypal eye’
– the ability to see archetypal patterns, have a symbolic discernment in understanding
archetypal complexes, and see through the literal and concrete to the deeper themes
being conveyed – has remained primarily confined to depth psychology and the study
of mythology (Hillman 1975).13 Indeed, according to Kripal (2019), part of the reason
why the Humanities have continued to decline in terms of status and numbers is
because they have remained wedded to a materialist (and post-modernist) worldview
where ‘mind is mattered’ and the study of the so-called subjective is not valued as it is
not seen as ‘real’.
Similar to Walton’s (2017) argument about the importance of consciousness for the
study of spirituality, Kripal (2019, 107) sees the inclusion of non-materialist views of con-
sciousness into the Humanities as forging a new dialogue with science and a new way of
knowing, ‘a new metaphysical imagination that does not confuse what we can observe in
the third person with all there is’. His account of the ‘flip’ that leads to a view of reality
where mind permeates the material cosmos requires a ‘new recalibration of the huma-
nities and the sciences toward some future form of knowledge’ (13) as the inability
and failure of scientific materialism to explain consciousness as an epiphenomenon of
the brain becomes more apparent to the mainstream.
Key to this new way of knowing for Kripal is the imagination, from which emerges
both symbol and myth. These are foundational categories not only within the Huma-
nities but also within the sciences, for, as Kripal notes, science itself is based on the sym-
bolic language of mathematics – and symbolic languages (which can include dreams, art,
literature) are the ‘most important and meaningful forms of knowledge that a human being
can possess … and represent encounters with or approaches to the … deeper ground of all
being or … consciousness itself’ (original italics, 137).
The Humanities are important to understanding symbolic forms of knowledge
because symbols do not lend themselves to the scientific method of observation
through the senses but often their meaning (as with synchronicities) is intimated ‘in
between the objective events and the subjective states’ (original italics, 139). Symbolic
knowing, Kripal suggests, assumes a conscious and enchanted cosmos, one that
‘speaks’ to us through signs and symbols, an assumption that has yet to fully disrupt
the mainstream paradigms of science or the postmodern Humanities.
A conscious and enchanted cosmos that ‘speaks’ through the symbolic, imaginal and
soul-making language of astrology is central to the participatory worldview of Archetypal
Cosmology (Rossi 2019). Such language not only sparks ‘meaning through engaging the

13
Hillman’s ‘archetypal eye’ is referred to in Tarnas (2006, 70) and sourced in Tarnas (2016, 91).
12 G. ZAPPALÀ

imagination’ but also requires rational intelligence for its interpretation, creating the
‘potential for bringing intuitive apprehension and critical analysis into a harmonious
relationship’ (Voss 2017, 114). A key methodological and pedagogical practice of Arche-
typal Cosmology, for instance, is to analyse and illustrate how the archetypal patterns are
visible in the biographies of influential individuals, or significant works of literature, art,
music, or film as well as societal shifts in religious and cultural sensibilities (Le Grice
2021b).14 Even if the astrological component requires too big a ‘flip’ for some, a sensibil-
ity to the ‘archetypal imagination’ and an understanding inherent in its approach can
help us to gain a deeper psychological understanding of our unconscious and conscious
thoughts and behaviour patterns (Rossi 2019, 60). Seeing ‘from the literal to the meta-
phorical and from the personal to the archetypal’ adds a ‘qualitative’ dimension (Rossi
2019, 66) to other ways of knowing which is important for cultivating an SQ that is sen-
sitive to different learning styles (Cowan 2005).

Conclusion
While worldviews are everchanging they remain critical in shaping our perception of
reality, they reach ‘inward to constitute our inner most being and outward to constitute
the world’ (Tarnas 2006, 16). We are living in a time of ‘cross pressures’ pregnant with
uncertainty, volatility and anxiety, between the narratives of science-based materialism
and an emerging participative worldview informed by a secular spirituality and archety-
pal consciousness (Taylor 2007). Unlike the dominant ‘left brain’ thinking that drives
rational intelligence (IQ) and which dominated the modern worldview of scientific mate-
rialism (McGilchrist 2009), SQ, based on combining the skills of left and right brain
hemispheres, may help birth and reinforce the emerging participatory worldview
(Zohar 2016).
The discipline of Archetypal Cosmology posits a participatory worldview based on
an enchanted cosmos in which the microcosm of the psyche is reflected in the macro-
cosm of the universe through a mysterious yet empirically observable planetary syn-
chronicity. This paper highlighted an important synthesis between SQ and
Archetypal Cosmology. First, the correspondence between the SQ principles and the
planetary archetypal meanings which suggests that SQ may be a form of archetypal
intelligence. Second, that the concepts and methodological practices of Archetypal Cos-
mology provide another mode to cultivate SQ through the former’s ability to lead to
greater self-awareness, growth, and development. The role of archetypes in the
process of individuation finds its parallel in the notion of SQ as the ‘soul’s intelligence’,
leading towards wholeness. Finally, the synthesis of SQ and Archetypal Cosmology,
both multi-sensory ways of knowing that include the imaginal, symbolic, mythical,
and spiritual, may facilitate new modes of thinking to help bridge the sciences and
humanities.
The renowned scholar of mythology, Michael Meade, suggests we replace the over-
and mis-used term ‘paradigm’, with ‘archetype’. Paradigm shift, Meade (2021, 3)
states, has ‘come to mean replacing an old model with a newer and therefore better
one’. Archetypes, by contrast:
14
See the various empirically-based articles in Archai (http://www.archai.org/previous-issues/). Accessed 22/6/2020.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 13

are the original patterns from which all subsequent models derive … the deeper sense of an
archetype shows how the new idea or vision arises from ancient and enduring roots of
being … the new paradigm can be the old archetype stirred up from the original depths of
creation and now come round again, refashioned for the current time’ (ibid., italics added).

The worldview of Archetypal Cosmology is a renewed psycho-cosmological vision based

on roots that have endured the journey of the last 2,500 years and involves an ‘archetypal
shift’ in an archetypal understanding of the cosmos. Perhaps we are at a kairos15 moment
for revisioning our understanding of the acronym (AI) as connoting an Archetypal rather
than Artificial Intelligence – one based on the human soul and its quest for meaning in a
re-enchanted and spiritually intelligent cosmos.

Acknowledgement
I thank Roni Lorenzato for our conversations about the ideas outlined in this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Dr Gianni Zappalà is a Professional Fellow at the Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion at the
University of Technology Sydney, Australia. He has degrees in Economics and Politics from the
Universities of Sydney, London and Cambridge, and has taught and published on a wide range
of social and policy issues, including Spirituality and Business. He also developed Meaningful
Evaluation, a holistic and systemic framework for social impact assessment consistent with parti-
cipatory approaches.

References
Basquez, K. 2014. “Taking the Archetypes to School.” Assisi Institute Journal 1 (1): 15–35.
Capra, F., and P. L. Luisi. 2014. The Systems View of Life – A Unifying Vision. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Conforti, M. 1999. Field, Form, and Fate: Patterns in Mind, Nature, and Psyche. New Orleans:
Spring Journal Books.
Courtney, S. J. 2019. “The Salt-Point: Kairos Emergent from Chaos.” Journal of Jungian Scholarly
Studies 14 (1): 1–12.
Cowan, D. A. 2005. “Translating Spiritual Intelligence into Leadership Competencies.” Journal of
Management, Spirituality and Religion 2 (1): 3–38.
Curry, P. 2017. “The Enchantment of Learning and the Fate of Our Times.” In Re-enchanting the
Academy, edited by A. Voss, and S. Wilson, 33–52. Auckland, NZ and Seattle, USA: Rubedo
Press.
Ferrer, J. N. 2002. Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ferrer, J. N., M. T. Romero, and R. V. Albareda. 2005. “Integral Transformative Education – A
Participatory Proposal.” Journal of Transformative Education 3 (4): 306–330.
Ferrer, J. N., and J. H. Sherman, eds. 2008. The Participatory Turn: Spirituality, Mysticism,
Religious Studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

15
To the ancient Greeks, kairos indicated a critical point of balance, or the right moment for a new opening or under-
standing (Courtney 2019).
14 G. ZAPPALÀ

Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the New Millennium. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 2000. “A Case Against Spiritual Intelligence.” International Journal for the Psychology
of Religion 10 (1): 27–34.
Gidley, J. M. 2008. “Educating for Evolving Consciousness: Voicing the Emergency for Love, Life
and Wisdom.” In International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, Care and Wellbeing,
edited by M. de Souza, Leslie J. Francis, James O’Higgins-Norman, and Daniel Scott, 553–
561. Switzerland: SpringerLink.
Gober, M. 2018. An End to Upside Down Thinking. Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA, USA: Waterside Press.
Greene, L. 2018a. Jung’s Studies in Astrology: Prophecy, Magic, and the Qualities of Time. London:
Routledge.
Greene, L. 2018b. The Astrological World of Jung’s ‘Liber Novus’: Daimons, Gods, and the Planetary
Journey. London: Routledge.
Hartelius, G. 2019. “Science and a Whole Person Psychology: Can Participatory Empiricism Ease
the Way Forward?” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 38 (1): iii–xiii.
Haule, J. R. 2010. Jung in the 21st Century – Vol. 1: Evolution and Archetype. London: Routledge.
Hillman, J. 1975/1992. Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper.
Hills, T. T. 2018. “Masters of Reality.” aeon, November 1. Accessed November 5, 2018. https://
aeon.co/essays/why-did-shamanism-evolve-in-societies-all-around-the-globe.
Jung, C. G. 1969. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, Collected Works, Vol. 9.
Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and
Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
King, D. B., and T. L. DeCicco. 2009. “A Viable Model and Self-Report Measure of Spiritual
Intelligence.” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 28 (1): 68–85.
King, D. B., C. A. Mara, and T. L. DeCicco. 2012. “Connecting the Spiritual and Emotional
Intelligences: Confirming an Intelligence Criterion and Assessing the Role of Empathy.”
International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 31 (1): 11–20.
Kripal, J. J. 2019. /2020. The Flip – Who You Really Are and Why it Matters. London: Penguin Books.
Le Grice, K. 2009. “The Birth of a New Discipline – Archetypal Cosmology in Historical
Perspective.” Archai: The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology 1 (1): 2–22.
Le Grice, K. 2010/2012. The Archetypal Cosmos – Rediscovering the Gods in Myth, Science and
Astrology. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Le Grice, K. 2011. “Astrology and the Modern Western World View.” Archai: The Journal of
Archetypal Cosmology 3: 15–49.
Le Grice, K. 2017a. “The Colloquy of the Gods: Excerpts from the Introductions to Jung on
Astrology.” In Le Grice, K. 2021b.
Le Grice, K. 2017b. “Explanations of Astrology, Introduction to Part IV of Jung on Astrology.” In
Le Grice, K. 2021b.
Le Grice, K. 2021a. “The Archetypal Dynamics of Individuation.” In Le Grice, K. 2021b.
Le Grice, K. 2021b. Archetypal Cosmology and Depth Psychology – Selected Essays. Ojai, CA: ITAS
Publications.
Lorimer, D. 2019. “The Galileo Commission: Towards a Post-Materialist Science. An Invitation to
Look Through the Telescope.” Journal for the Study of Spirituality 9 (1): 67–72.
Mackey, C. 2019. The Positive Psychology of Synchronicity. London: Watkins.
McGilchrist, I. 2009. The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the
Western World. London: Yale University Press.
Meade, M. 2021. “A Time of Transformation on Earth.” Accessed March 29, 2021. https://www.
mosaicvoices.org/a-time-of-transformation-on-earth.
Olivetti, K. 2015. “Dimensions of the Psyche – A Conversation with Stanislav Grof, MD, and
Richard Tarnas, PhD.” Jung Journal 9 (4): 98–124.
Probst, G., and A. Bassi. 2014. Tackling Complexity: A Systemic Approach for Decision Makers.
Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPIRITUALITY 15

Rossi, S. 2019. “Planetary Interiority: James Hillman and the Archetypal Psyche.” The Federation of
Australian Astrologers 49 (4): 59–68. Accessed June, 2020. https://www.thearchetypaleye.com/
publications.
Rossi, S., and K. Le Grice. 2017. Jung on Astrology. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sisk, D. 2008. “Engaging the Spiritual Intelligence of Gifted Students to Build Global Awareness in
the Classroom.” Roeper Review 30: 24–30.
Sisk, D. 2016. “Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness Revisited.” Gifted
Education International 32 (3): 194–208.
Sisk, D. A., and E. P. Torrance. 2001. Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness.
Buffalo: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Sparks, J. G. 2007. At the Heart of Matter: Synchronicity and Jung’s Spiritual Testament. Toronto:
Inner City Books.
Tarnas, B. 2016. “Iridescent Infinity – Participatory Theory and Archetypal Cosmology.” Archai:
The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology 5: 87–104.
Tarnas, R. 1991/1993. The Passion of the Western Mind – Understanding the Ideas That Have
Shaped our World View. New York: Ballantine Books.
Tarnas, R. 2006/2007. Cosmos and Psyche – Intimations of a new World View. New York: Plume.
Tarnas, R. 2009a. “Archetypal Principles.” Archai: The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology 1 (1): 23–35.
Tarnas, R. 2009b. “The Planets.” Archai: The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology 1 (1): 36–49.
Tarnas, R. 2011a. “Archetypal Cosmology: Past and Present.” The Mountain Astrologer 23: 65–69.
Tarnas, R. 2011b. “Archetypal Cosmology: A Brief Account.” Accessed April 16, 2020. https://
cosmosandpsyche.com/essays/.
Taylor, C. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Turner, V. 1987/1994. “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites of Passage.” In Betwixt
and Between: Patterns of Masculine and Feminine Initiation, edited by L. Carus Mahdi, S. Foster,
and M. Little, 3–19. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.
Valadas Ponte, D., and L. Schäfer. 2013. “Carl Gustav Jung, Quantum Physics and the Spiritual
Mind: A Mystical Vision of the Twenty-First Century.” Behavioral Sciences 3: 601–618.
Voss, A. 2017. “Delectare, Docere, Movere: Soul-Learning, Reflexivity and the Third Classroom.”
In Re-enchanting the Academy, edited by A. Voss, and S. Wilson, 113–138. Auckland, NZ and
Seattle, USA: Rubedo Press.
Walach, H. 2017. “Secular Spirituality – What it is. Why we Need it. How to Proceed.” Journal for
the Study of Spirituality 7 (1): 7–20.
Walach, H. 2020. Beyond a Materialist Worldview Towards an Expanded Science, Galileo
Commission Report, London: The Scientific and Medical Network.
Walton, J. 2017. “The Significance of Consciousness Studies and Quantum Physics for Researching
Spirituality.” Journal for the Study of Spirituality 7 (1): 21–34.
Wigglesworth, C. 2012. SQ21: the Twenty-one Skills of Spiritual Intelligence. New York:
SelectBooks.
Zappalà, G. 2021. “A Meaningful Participatory Model of Conscious Leadership: Cultivating
Spiritual Intelligence for Conscious Capitalism.” In The Spirit of Conscious Capitalism:
Contributions of World Religions and Spiritualities, edited by M. Dion, and M. Pava. Springer
International (forthcoming).
Zohar, D. 2016. The Quantum Leader – A Revolution in Business Thinking and Practice. New York:
Prometheus Books.
Zohar, D., and I. Marshall. 2000. SQ: The Ultimate Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Zohar, D., and I. Marshall. 2004. Spiritual Capital – Wealth we Can Live by. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.

View publication stats