Towards a Postmodern Spirituality: a 'New' ISOF Vision

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Werklund School of Education Werklund School of Education Research & Publications

2007 Towards a Postmodern Spirituality: A 'New' ISOF Vision

Fisher, R. M.; Bickel, B.

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

Fisher, R. M., & Bickel, B. (2007). Towards a Postmodern Spirituality: A 'New' ISOF Vision (Technical Paper No.21). Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. . http://hdl.handle.net/1880/109986 Report

Unless otherwise indicated, this material is protected by copyright and has been made available with authorization from the copyright owner. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca ______

Toward a Postmodern Spirituality: A ‘New’ ISOF Vision

Technical Paper #21

Abstract

After eight years of graduate study in Education at UBC, Michael and Barbara reflect on what it means to them to propose a ‘new’ vision of In Search of Fearlessness (ISOF) for the future. They acknowledge that any new vision comes with a ‘new’ image of humankind and our collective relationship/responsibility to the planet and the cosmos (Kosmos). Their new vision has taken at least two different working titles In Search of Fearlessness Arts Centre & Research Institute, Celestine Centre for Arts & Spiritual Education. This paper tracks some of their recent journey as they locate themselves as integralists with a desire to refurbish much of the spirituality they have encountered for the past few decades. They utilize a powerful integral image of the ‘new’ human-organizational relation. Their initial conclusion in this latest vision, much like a diverse group of philosophers and theorists they’ve studied and utilized, is that a postmodern spirituality is required for the 21st century and a post-9/11 world. Such an integral postmodern approach to spirituality requires the acknowledgement and utilization of the best of pre-modern insights and practices (e.g., “new age”), modernist sensibility and facts (e.g., “new paradigms”), and an overhauling of both of these, as Ken Wilber would say, “... to take into account Spirit’s postmodern turn.” They offer an initiative for transformative cultural workers revived from their past experience in ISOF (Calgary), toward an “Integral Age.”

Introduction: Re-birthing

Naming and Questioning Names: A Very Brief History of ISOF

Everything is evolving: birth, death, re-birth ad infinitum. This ‘new’ vision is grounded in the ‘old’ visions, and is not alone among many new visions well underway that attempt to guide us into the future, fulfilling a mutual-correcting combination of an “ecological ethic” and “self-realization ethic” (Markley & Harman, 1982:116) capable of managing appropriately (integrally) the complexity of order and chaos to come. And, this 21st century is also highly unmanageable, and we visionaries, cultural workers, revolutionaries, activists, and leaders of a ‘new’ world order and chaos are due for some major humility on the world stage of change and transformation. We are all destined to be part of a “global discourse” where, as Homi K. Bhabha (2003) put it:

We have to learn to negotiate ‘incommensurable’ or conflictual social and cultural differences while maintaining the ‘intimacy’ of our inter-cultural existence and transnational associations. (p. 31)

It is a different, more “globalized,” “multi-culturalized,” “decolonializing” world today, in many respects, than it was in the late 1980’s when In Search of Fearlessness

1 For further details about him and his work see www.feareducation.com and for Barbara see www.barbarabickel.ca and www.barbarabickel.com

1 emerged. It is a post-9/11 world and a climate of fear that everywhere seeps into our bones, attempting to paralyze us—for some a paralysis of “comfort” and for some a paralysis of “suffering.” Recently, organizational development ‘guru’ Meg Wheatley (2006) courageously asked leaders at a conference: “What if we can’t save the world?” She continued her speech: “I’m quite perplexed by how fearful we are as cultures now in North America, and in Europe; we’re so damned fearful of losing what we have, we’re not noticing that we’re losing what we have through our silence.” We are not going to be silent and ISOF is not going to be silent, at least, not for long.

In Search of Fearlessness Project (ISOF) was birthed in 1989 in Calgary, AB, Canada and “died” in 1998, for all intensive purposes as a living community. The idea of ISOF has never died and never will, rather it is continually in a process of its own evolution, changing forms when required. This paper is about its latest form. Before moving forward, a moment’s pause is due to reflect on one of the general mission statements created and publicized for ISOF (Calgary):

ISOF is a community of people from diverse backgrounds dedicated to ‘learning to live and love beyond fear and coping.’ (c.1994)

Michael has been writing a book on the history of the ISOF (Calgary) project, in one of the earliest drafts (1990) he wrote:

The title In Search of Fearlessness was a take-off beyond the “In Search of Excellence” campaign in the 1980s [Tom Peters et al.]. Our [ISOF] project was the next step further into the realm of how we live our everyday lives in the context of all the oppressive forces based on fear that have become ‘normalized’ in our modernist culture. We would not call ourselves “new age” as much of it is still embedded in fear-based thinking. ISOF is a totally empowering response to the “World Age” of the 1990s. (p. 3)

Wheatley (2006) asked leaders another question: “Are we choosing names that demand fearlessness?” She presumes that the names we choose for ourselves as individuals and as groups are meaningful and determine the power that moves in and through them. She asked leaders further: “What is the name that is big enough to hold your fearlessness, that is big enough to call you into fearlessness? That is big enough to break your heart?” We think ISOF has always been big enough, and we trust the new visions and names we’re holding at present may also be big enough to hold our fearlessness and those that want to join us.

Words, images, and intentions are wonderful, and sometimes are useful “swords.” They have their time and place. Yet, in the ‘real’ world, All things evolve: birth, die, re- birth. Here to follow are some of our new words, images, and intentions in response to the emerging times of the 21st century.

On December 28, 2006 Barbara approached Michael to reconsider the re-ignition of a new sub-project entitled In Search of Fearlessness Arts Centre & Research Institute (ISOFACRI), within the overall In Search of Fearlessness Project (ISOF). A few weeks later, after several influences in our lives, Michael came up with a modified potential alternative entitled Celestine Centre for Arts & Spiritual Education (CCASE) (see Appendix I). Although we both are attracted to such an idea which represents our ultimate concerns, we knew that it would be a vision not likely to manifest in a physical space and place for quite some time (1-3 yrs). Although, we both think

2 cyberspace applications for personal and world change has its strengths, we tend to see it as highly over-rated and our greater interest is in re-birthing ‘anew’ with real people, in real places, with real consequences. That said, at some point ISOFACRI (or some other envisioned name and entity) will ‘go on-line’ for some functions and not others.

We also acknowledged that the name ISOFACRI is a beginning one and is open to change, as the original ISOF Project has had different names and forms over the years—e.g., Fearlessness Centre in Calgary, AB in the mid-90s and Fearlessness Foundation (2000) in Vancouver. Further complications and interesting inputs have come with the particular historical discovery of The League for Fearlessness (1931) document and movement in the U.S.A. All these have brought us to question why call any of this In Search of Fearlessness? Has the term “fearlessness” itself grown to be unweildly, as Michael’s latest synthesis shows at least a dozen or more different meanings for the term exist and more are likely to be created (Fisher, 2006)? Does fearlessness, as utilized in the ISOF context, just have too many powerful ‘enemies’ (Fisher, 1997:6-8)? Or, is it the perfect name, as Wheatley (2006) challenges leaders on this planet? “Integralists” and “postmodernists”: fearlessly we imagine ourselves.

Applying Arts & Research

A few years before ISOF ever got started formally as a group of teachers, facilitators, and learners, “spontaneous creation-making” activities were facilitated by us in local community centres. Founders of the movement have always developed ISOF through an arts-based approach toward insight, healing, transformation, politics and cultural development. Eventually, a book was published under the ISOF Research Institute entitled Opening Doors: A Guide to Spontaneous Creation-Making (Bickel & Fisher, 1993). “Spontaneous creation-making” became one of the six ‘fear’ vaccines in ISOF (Calgary). Plentiful and available art supplies of all kinds, as well as music, singing, room to dance, move, dramatize, to create writing, to laugh, and to cry, have always accompanied our various rented physical Centres in Calgary. We are most comfortable calling ourselves “artists” first, even though each of us have had several other career tracks and identities.

As well as having professional art careers at different times of our lives, we also have had a passionate mission and profound longing to fulfill a greater life purpose than our careers. We know what sacrifice means when one “follows their bliss.” With Michael, as co-founder of the ISOF Project (1989), and Director of the ISOF Centre & Research Institute since 1991, and Barbara, a leader of the ISOF Centre and co- founder of the Centre Gallery (1995-01), there is an immediate desire to begin articulating this ‘new’ future vision based on conversations we’ve had over the past eight years since leaving ISOF (Calgary) and, based on research since coming to UBC and Vancouver to continue research graduate work. This articulation of ISOFACRI has to integrate both the best of ISOF (Calgary) between 1989-98, and the best of what we both have learned in Vancouver (1998-07) overall. Of course, this is a vision that will continually emerge and invite input from many people. However, we will lead it.

Maybe the only route to Love is fire.... –M. Wheatley (1999)

3 Three Primary Concepts: Towards Justice, Wisdom & Compassion

Three primary words and concepts stand out in our new vision: “fearlessness,” “arts” and “research.” Not that they are the only words or ideas of interest, for surely, “community-building,” highly regarded by both of us, was central to ISOF (Calgary) and will be central to ISOFACRI. For introductory purposes: “fearlessness” is Michael’s specialty of research, and “arts as ritual” is Barbara’s specialty of research; with both of us having a long history of experience and scholarly inquiry into the nature and role of spirituality and adult learning (see our websites).

As one of its many meanings, fearlessness is the sacred ground and ethical spiritual referent of ISOF and requires deep understanding and living it. It informs the arts, research and learning we wish to foster. We are also interested in an ISOF community (and communities elsewhere on the planet) that regards research and critical inquiry as essential to maintaining a high quality within our sexuality, emotionality, morality, spirituality and our thinking, acting and management of the social and environmental world—i.e., attaining the highest levels of justice, compassion and wisdom. Yes, there is a lot of work to do on Earth to make this a better place, and we are both convinced it ought to be work guided, to some degree, by good research within a healthy community of practitioners of liberation (i.e., “cultural workers”2 building a collaborative “cultural front”3). All these terms will eventually be defined in other documents to follow this initial one.

Integralists (postmodernists): In Search of Philosophies for ISOFACRI

Introducing “Integral” Philosophy: A ‘New’ ISOF Approach & Correction

Michael began to introduce “integral” images and ideas to ISOF (Calgary) during his last year as the main teacher. It was too little, too late. Unfortunately, upon reflection, he feels that most people involved in the ISOF Community (and outside it) were unable to identify/respect the ISOF Tradition of principles accurately, because they generally lacked (not anyone’s fault) a conscious grounding in critical integral theory and postmodern thought. ISOF, more or less, emergently was and is an integral- postmodern idea or “structure” (see definitions below). Unfortunately, most people

2 “... culture is both celebrated and scorned.... For many neoliberals.... democracy is in crisis and the problem is culture,” writes critical pedagogue and cultural critic Henry Giroux (2000:1). By “cultural worker” we do not mean that artists and producers of cultural products are to see themselves only as cogs in the wheel of the ‘free market’ of the new “cultural industries” and globalizing commerce. We follow a more political and critical definition (leftist-leanings for sure; but we are not exclusively leftist on all things, like spirituality, for example), whereby a “cultural revolution” is going on and “cultural politics” is central to our role as cultural workers (producers and consumers of culture and knowledges), critics, public intellectuals (Giroux, 2000:126-7). Michael’s research has been on developing an integral model of conflict work and fear work, and Giroux’s education theories are embedded in critical and conflict theory, and that makes them appealing to doing cultural work overall, as it is an area of a lot of conflict, fear, violence (i.e., “Culture Wars”), or what Michael has called “Fear Wars” (Fisher, 2003:3). 3 “Cultural front” (a la Antonio Gramsci) was defined by Bhabha (2003): “A cultural front is not necessarily a political party; it is more a movement or alliance of groups who struggle for fairness and justice emphasized the deep collaboration between aesthetics, ethics and activism. A cultural front does not have a homogenous and totalizing view of the world...” (p. 31). An integral perspective and movement (as well a fearlessness movement) also has this quality but not necessarily is avoidant of universal ideas, theories, frameworks, as Bhabha’s notion is.

4 were (mis-)interpreting (and comparing) ISOF philosophy from their pre-modern (e.g., “new age”) and modern (“new paradigm”) lenses or ‘centre of gravity’ re: developmental cultural stage/level (see later discussion and Ken Wilber’s theory).

Many wonderful accomplishments had built ISOF since 1989. Yet, it is not surprising that once we (Michael and Barbara) stepped down as co-leaders, the perspective of ISOF and its structure folded almost immediately. It has not been taken up and led by any past ISOF (Calgary) members (some 50 people) since. The six ‘fear’ vaccines of ISOF practices4 were obviously not ‘rooted’ in a larger meaningful context of an integral-postmodern spiritual understanding (e.g., beyond personalities). The criticisms of ISOF (Calgary) and our leadership, over the years, has been diverse, but never have we heard anyone from the ISOF past say that the initiative and idea of it, with its ‘fear’ vaccines, was useless to them personally. However, something larger was missing that contributed significantly to its collapse and near ‘death’ since. In a way, ISOF (Calgary), as an organization, could not fully understand itself and the changes going on in ‘the world’ at the time (i.e., post-1989: see Fisher, 1999) because it needed to go through a growth crisis of historical adaptation, historical consciousness, and cultural-political revisioning as a postmodern “revolutionary”5 (and transformative) movement.

We both admit, in retrospect, in the late ‘90s we were still catching up to those ‘new’ theories and changes in postmodern cultural politics in the West, as well as their inevitably strong impact on how “liberation” and “spirituality” were likely to take shape in the near future. Now, we want to attempt to ‘correct’ that omission from the ISOF past, a past that tended to pay more attention to individual psychology (and spirituality) of healing, than history, culture and politics. From our studies at UBC, we are attempting to clarify the best of integral and postmodernity but to also critique and discard their extreme pathological forms6 and less useful aspects as far as ISOFACRI is concerned.

4 Six ‘fear’ vaccines (processes) in no particular order: a) spontaneous creation-making, b) community-building, c) fear and fearlessness information, d) vision quest, e) liberation peer counseling, f) sacred warriorship. 5 We respect that the word “revolutionary” has a long political (often ‘bloody’) history and we wish to not denigrate or dismiss its meanings to many peoples. We also believe there is evidence that “cultural revolution” (spiritual as well) is a form of transformation more subtle than past political revolutionary images and realities. At least ideally, we agree with Markley & Harman (1982) “For the new [integral] image to foster a smooth transition to a benign post- industrial and eventually planetary society, it has to be absorbed inot the lives of people and the institutions of society without the disruptions that accompany most revolutions. This can only happen if the new image and its implications are seen as an integration, reinterpretation or improvement of the old” (p. 117). From an integral perspective, and a traditional modern political perspective, Michael (Fisher, 2003) in his dissertation takes up this dialogue in a performative and extensive piece of writing. Also, the 1989-91 E. Central European “revolutions” (Kumar, 2001) are exemplary of new ‘soft’ (‘velvet’) types of revolutions that have shown the whole world that there can be (less bloody) ways to change the world radically (internally and externally). 6 Although a very complex topic, open for debate, the “pathological” and/or “incomplete” (biased, or ideological) aspects we are referring to here can be generally collected under the umbrella of “overly-masculine/cognitive” for integral theorizing and organizing and “overly- relative” for extreme postmodernism (post-structuralism); the latter ending up with a “minimal” and “narcissistic” (“victim”) construction of the ‘self.’ Too abstract, with neither, “relationally- based” enough and thus tending to stay emotionally/relationally “immature.”

5 Wilber’s Postmodern Integral Idea(s)

To begin the more philosophical, historical, and political articulation, Michael returns to his favorite integral philosopher, Ken Wilber, who, since 1982 has had a strong influence on Michael’s shaping of the ISOF Movement,7 revolution, theory and practices—which can all be boiled down to a form of engaged spirituality for a post- 9/11 postmodern world and beyond (i.e., an “Integral Age”8). Wilber (2006) has documented his latest synthesis entitled: Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World, from which we draw several pivotal ideas. In the latter part of this document Barbara will draw on several women postmodern philosopher-theorists to articulate some foundational premises for her view of the role of arts and ritual in a postmodern integral spirituality.

Before going into more depth, let’s review Wilber’s (2006) basic position:

In the past two decades, a radically new theoretical framework for organizing the world and activities in it has started to achieve prominence and widespread recognition. Known as the Integral Approach, it has been used in everything from business to medicine, psychology to law, politics to sustainability, art to education. Because the Integral Framework claims to be comprehensive or inclusive, each discipline using it has been able to reorganize itself in more comprehensive, effective, efficient, and inclusive ways. The Integral Approach itself does not add any content9 to these disciplines; it simply shows them the areas of their own approaches that are less than integral or less than comprehensive, and this acts as a guide for

7 Recognition of the ISOF Movement, as one of the ‘new’ social movements, with an ancient past, is one of Michael’s current post-doctoral research projects. Without a location of ISOF in a social movement with a history, there is a lack of concreteness and legitimacy for most people today for what ISOF is all about. Thus, most people tend to see it as just “psychology” or “self- help” with a little spirituality thrown in. This reductionistic tendency of interpretation is something Michael believes, with research, he can correct (at least, on paper). 8 Wilber (2006) suggests the “Integral Age” (or Integral Movement) as a better, more accurate, and less baggage-carrying term than “New Age.” For our purposes here, it is an emergent consciousness and collective awareness that suggests that we need to integrate various conflicting “camps” (enemies) regarding knowledges and ways of knowing about reality and truth, and in our approaches to solving real problems on the planet. Wilber presents his integral approach (AQAL) as a standard for such integration of subjective, objective, individual, and collective dimensions, as well as a developmental (evolutionary) framework, as basic to an integral (epistemological) framework and an Integral Age. He argues this did not really come about as a way of thinking and conceptualizing until near the year 2000 (as postmodernism’s hegemonic domination began to subside), although elements of the integral perspective can be found in many other theorists’ works; but overall, in Western industrial-information societies, the integral perspective never began to be paid attention to in any serious way until the last decade or two of the 20th century (p. 282). Wilber has never wanted to claim his is the only view of what an “integral theory” or approach ought to be but rather there are several integral theories and approaches, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Michael has studied many of these and is convinced Wilber’s is superior at this time (even though he, and we, have our critiques of its shortcomings as well). 9 The intention of this ‘value-neutral’ functionalist assumption, albeit with honorable direction, is not justifiable in our view, and distorts in a very ‘dangerous’ way what ideas (if not ideology) are behind this notion of integral praxis. Wilber’s long career in developing the outline of an Integral Approach is loaded with (non-neutral value) “content” and is not just a method, as he claims here. In later documents, we’ll trace through some of the “content” in the Integral Approach and philosophy.

6 reorganizing.... (p. ix)

Postmodern Spirituality: And an Integral Perspective

Later, there will be many dialogues and documents further developing the details and arguments for this new vision, Integral Approach, and cultural work. Questions arise that are more important right now. What is a postmodern spirituality supposed to look like exactly? What ‘new’ kind of human being is predicted for this Integral Age? Well, that’s not real clear yet, and likely won’t ever be finalized. Articulating the notion of “postmodern” is hard enough, never mind likewise defining “spirituality,” as there are so many perspectives one could take on these topics. Then the more controversial ‘hot’ topic is to try to articulate a vision of what the ‘new’ human being10 would be like who practices integral postmodern spirituality. This paper, remember, is a very brief introduction only. Patience, curiousity, and creativity are surely required to explore and learn about this ‘new’ territory of ISOFACRI. What we can say is that we particularly like to use Wilber’s (unique and relatively unknown) integral version of postmodern:

Postmodern philosophy... defined almost entirely by what its proponents reject [i.e., foundationalism,11 essentialism, and transcendentalism, rationality and grand narratives or big pictures that explain everything as one “truth” etc.].... Incoherent as the postmodern theories often sound [and they are rarely agreed upon by all postmodern philosophers]... most of these “rejections” stem from three core [substantive] assumptions: (1) Reality is not in all ways pregiven, but in some significant ways is a construction, an interpretation [called constructivism]; (2) Meaning is context-dependent, and contexts are [many and diverse] boundless [called contextualism]; (3) Cognition must therefore privilege no single perspective [called integral-aperspectival] (Wilber, 1998:121).

The postmodern-integral conceptualization is somewhat similar to the “Third Wave” (Toffler, 1981) civilization, where

... we will need to formulate sweeping new integrative world views— coherent syntheses, not merely blips—that tie things together. No single

10 The futurist, Alvin Toffler (1981) documents an historical overview of transitions to new civilizations and images of a ‘new man’ [sic] that have come and gone. He reviews the “superman” type images of various utopian theorists and revolutionaries from Rousseau, Reszler, Nietzsche, Trotsky, Fanon, Guevara, etc. He also shows how such romantic images can lead to corrupt ‘evil monsters’ (e.g., Hitler). The “Third Wave” civilization (e.g., Integral Age) now underway, says Toffler, cannot suggest naive prototype images of the ‘new’ human being who is developmentally and morally perfect and which ‘fits’ for everybody as the model human (pp. 360-1). However, there is a general task in any revolutionary transformative vision to articulate “character traits” (p. 362) that will best lead the way into a ‘new’ civilization or ‘Age’ and best adapt to the ‘new.’ This is not the document to outline those traits, other than to say that ISOFACRI is not interested in forming what has popularly and negatively been called “a cult” or organization where everyone is supposed to look and act the same (usually, acting like the worshipped “guru” leader-figure of some form). 11 For technical purposes, we do not like to use the “ism” ending for philosophies of any kind, unless that “philosophy” has turned to ideology (i.e., it attempts to dominate aggressively and violently over any other philosophy or view, to the point, in extreme cases, of denying that any other philosophies or viewpoints even exist).

7 world view [new image] can ever capture the whole truth. Only by applying multiple and temporary metaphors can we gain a rounded (if still incomplete) picture of the world. But to acknowledge this axiom is not the same as saying life is [only relative] and meaningless. (p. 379)

Most important, in Wilber’s critique, vision, and image for the ‘new’ human- organizational relation, is that even if a Third Wave, or Integral Age12 emerges to a significant degree, and ‘fits’ well for our world and many people, it is not the only model, only worldview, or only ‘right’ way to live on this planet; and in fact, Wilber cautions us (of the Integral Age) to not attempt to believe, nor assume, that everyone, everywhere, ought to be where we are (e.g., worldcentric, global consciousness). An Integral Approach goes in a very different direction (than such naivete), respecting the multiple and different histories, economies, and ethnic and developmental distinctions in an evolutionary context. That said, the management of a “home” or a “World,” as a “whole system,” has to be done by someone (meaning: some groups, some organizations who are interested in universal global values, socioeconomic and/or moral world order,13 from ideally, an integral perspective, image, theory, and praxis).

Foundational Context: A Beginning Model of Critical Praxis

Let’s begin with a foundational context in order to construct some initial, relatively compelling meanings of what is most important in ISOFACRI—that is, the premises upon which it moves forward in theory, which would shape the practices of ISOF postmodern spirituality.

Traditionally, practices and learning will also shape the theory—that is called a mutual or dyadic praxis. Like Wilber, we have seen too many so-called “spiritual” or activist “liberational” or “preservationist” movements, groups and individuals who are not aware of the importance (or lack discipline for) critical praxis; and we’ve seen the worst kinds of twists and pathologies (ism’s) grow from lack of systematic criticality.

The world requires a healthy integral spirituality, as Wilber has written about, critiqued, and attempted himself through his own instigations of “movements” and “institutes” for the past six years. It is important to remember, Wilber and ourselves are drawing from a grand synthesis of many religious and spiritual traditions behind the scenes, which inform the shaping of ISOF philosophy and spirituality. ISOF is not

12 It is important to acknowledge that other people/theorists have identified the “Integral Age” and “cultural creatives,” “indigos,” “new agers,” “new paradigmers,” or “translucents,” etc. as utopian images of the new human being (or “leading-edge” of evolution). We have generally found these unappealing, flakey, or impartial. Thus, we follow Wilber’s general critques of them (see Wilber’s latest books since 2000 for more information). 13 Books and movements (in the 1970’s especially) for a “New World Order” are very diverse, migrating across the political and religious spectrum. The term makes postmodernists generally shutter in dismay and reject such a notion outright. We are more cautious about any such reactive rejection, and are more interested to carefully examine and critique what the term has meant and can mean—regarding, what Barbara Ward (1977), economist, environmentalist and social theorist, had called basic “planetary management” and the “need for a new world order” (p. viii) or, in appropriate metaphoric terms, she called basic “Planetary Housekeeping” (see chapter 28). There are “global issues” that require universal and local sensitivity—not one or the other—but both in order to manage the problems humanity faces all over, now and in the future.

8 a religion14 and was never conceived or designed to be. It may or may not replace the traditional role of religion in the future, just as Wilber’s postmodern integral (post- metaphysical15) spirituality is open for critical questioning as to its future role. We also have our ongoing critiques of Wilber’s integral approach and will attempt in our new vision of ISOF, a more ‘balanced’ (complete), more feminine, more feminist (relational), more arts-based approach (e.g., extrovert meditation16) than Wilber’s.

ISOF: An Integral “Liberating Structure” (lenses, levels, perspectives)

It is critical to understand that ISOF is many different things. There is no one definition, nor will there ever be. It is like trying to define “Spirit,” for example, or “Freedom,” “Love,” or “Church,” “Mosque,” or “Zen.” The definitions and meanings of such terms are diverse, sometimes contradictory, depending on one’s perspective (i.e., context). This is postmodernity in a ‘nutshell.’

That said, there will be plenty of time in further documents to clarify some general definitions or conceptual models of ISOF and in particular ISOFACRI but for now, I wish to focus on ISOF as a “structure” of consciousness per se and “liberating structure” (a la Bill Torbert17) as far as organizing and knowing itself. ISOF is a way of seeing and perceiving—and a lens or perspective, of sorts—which can be described most accurately within Wilber’s integral framework of a spectrum of consciousness (approx. 8-10 worldspaces, levels18 or lenses for viewing reality). This is all more

14 That said, we, like Wilber (2006) and other integralists, would like all “religion” to be more integral. 15 This is Wilber’s major recent radical contribution to the field of spiritual studies (see Wilber, 2006). It basically means that he offers a way to build and practice spirituality that is no longer so explicitly based on magic, mythic belief (stories), and theologically complex narratives of the unseen or the invisible world of “Spirit.” He argues, contrary to spiritual metaphysics, everything, including Spirit, consists of multiple perspectives—everything is perspectives. 16 Following creation-centered spirituality (a la Fr. Matthew Fox et al.), we distinguish between “introvert meditation” (usual forms of E. sitting meditation practices), and “extrovert meditation” practices (yoga, dance, movement, arts, etc.). Fox has made the argument that in the West we have imported (if not appropriated) a strong sub-culture of passive mind-sitting meditation practices (e.g., Zen) and that tends to feed our already dominating W. male-rational-mind-biased scientific-cultural practices. Like Fox, we believe a better ‘balance’ involves both extrovert and introvert forms. 17 “... structures—that cultivate empowerment [trust-based relations, not fear-based relations] through development—would properly be called ‘liberating structures’” (Torbert, 1991: 98). 18 In a most general description of eight altitudes or worldspaces (with good sides and pathological sides) based on colors from the chakra system as identifier, Wilber (2006) offers the following: (1) magenta- magical-animistic: includes demons, dragons, wizards, rage lust, rocks, rivers, trees, curses, voodoo, ancestors, clans, huts, villages, horses, spearheads; (2) red- egocentric, power, magic-mythic: includes warlords, tribes, 5 elements (earth, air, wind, fire, ether), anger, envy, power, titans, domination, oppression, slavery, genocide, spirit as gods and goddesses of elemental powers; (3) amber- mythic, ethnocentric, traditional: includes cathedrals, the righteous man, chivalry, salvation, charity, 2nd-person perspective, spirit as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Great Other; (4) orange- rational, worldcentric, pragmatic, modern: includes atoms, electrons, protons, periodic table of the 100+ elements, skyscrapers, rockets, worldcentric compassion, universal moral ideals, television, radio, 3rd-person perspectives, square root of a negative one, airplanes, automobiles, spirit as Great Designer and/or Ground of Being; (5) green- pluralistic, multicultural, postmodern: includes pluralistic systems, the Internet and World Wide Web, 4th-person perspective, values commons, imaginary numbers, hypercars, spirit as deep ecology and human harmony; (6) turquoise- global mind, high vision-logic, higher mind [integral]: includes Gaian collective, strings [string theory],

9 complex than is worth entering at this early stage, but suffice it to say that ISOF is a level-7 lens19 (or worldspace-6), which can be called “integral,” using Wilber’s terminology. Again, that will be articulated in greater detail in later documents and one can read Wilber’s many publications or websites devoted to his work to elaborate his classification system and conceptualizations.

This universal integral lens (ISOF) sees and embraces all the basic structures, cultural habits, discourses, v-memes, and ways that spirituality (and “spirit” itself) has been, and is, interpreted across time and cultures. Integral sees holistically20 and knows that no one structure, cultural habit, religion, myth, belief, and so on, is the only explanation of reality, morality, or right way to go to become liberated (free) or One- with-spirit. Integral, somewhat like pluralistic thought, has a great embracing perspective. One could say, any authentic global spirituality ought to be, at least, operating from an integral (fearlessness) level-7 lens. However, that is not the case nor can be the case due to developmental realities and conditions that do not allow or desire such an interpretation of ‘spirit’ and ‘reality.’

Religions (including many ‘new-age’ religions), traditionally and institutionally,21 have unfortunately tended to operate on largely ‘fear’-based mythic narratives and differential/integral calculus, nth-dimensional hyperspace, 5th-person perspective, quantum potential energy sources, spirit as planetary holarchy; (7) indigo- para-mind, trans-global, illumined mind: includes luminous clarity and compassion of 6th-person perspective, trans- planetary social ideals, mega-tribes, truth/goodness/beauty, self-seen in global gestalts, spirit as infinite Light/Love; (8) violet- meta-mind and overmind: includes overmind brilliant clarity, infinite love and compassion of 7th-person perspectives and beyond, including all sentient beings from their perspectives, trans-dimensional social ideals, spirit as radical interiority and infinite holarchy” (pp. 258-9). None of these is “right” nor “wrong” from an integral approach and each has a collective deep force in shaping the direction of evolution (telos) from 1 to 8. Most of the world populations are characteristically operative at magenta, red, amber (pre-modern world) with a smaller percentage at orange (modern world) and much smaller percentage at turquoise (postmodern) and above (transmodern). To understand fully Wilber’s conceptualization of possible experiences (multiple “spiritualities”) see the Wilber-Combs Lattice (Wilber, 2006:90). 19 We follow both Clare Grave’s original (1970s) classification (developed by Beck and Cowan in 1990s) of worldspaces or levels of development/evolution of cultural systems and Wilber’s newest classification—they overlap with lots of similarity but with a few differences in color- coding. In Michael’s Fear Management Systems (FMS) theory, which is directly related to a theory (and spirituality) of fearlessness (Fisher, 2004), he uses Don Beck’s (spiral dynamics) more than Wilber’s model and thus we present ISOF as primarily FMS-7 “yellow” and “integral” (in Wilber’s schema ISOF is turquoise) in perspective. It ought to be made clear that just because ISOF is a yellow/integral lens/perspective, does not mean that it cannot facilitate and evolve into altitudes or worldspaces (lenses) above 7, for it surely can (and should), at least theoretically for it to become a more and more powerful “liberating structure” and organization. 20 Wilber has often clarified that holistic is not as complex of a term or idea as integral but integral integrates notions of holistic philosophy and then goes beyond them. See Wilber’s critique of the subtle reductionism behind the “holistic paradigm” (epistemology) and its tendency to derive itself from a “Flatland ontology.” 21 Note, it is important to distinguish between the average/norm consensus (which is referred to above) upon which an institutional religion operates and the unique individuals within those religions. Some individuals have transcended the average/norm consensus consciousness of their religion of choice, and in some instances have “left” that organized institutional religion completely, finding that it did not serve them, and/or they had too many conflicting values with the mainstream view of their religion. Wilber distinguishes between exoteric and esoteric forms of spirituality within religions; the former being the average/norm interpretation of ‘spirit’ by the institution, and the later being a more mystical deep intuition and awareness that has a very

10 sometimes magic beliefs, that lead them to be less tolerant of other narratives, other magic beliefs, or in some cases resentful of rational democratic rights and the rule of law for civic governance; and thus, religions tend to interpret “Spirit” very differently (more reductionistically) than ISOF or an integral spirituality. Some, rightfully so, would critique “science” as a type of “religion” likewise, and thus, the same critique would apply: fear-full religion leads to religionism (ideology) and fear-full science leads to scientism (ideology).

The 1st premise is, that ISOF(ACRI) is a liberation movement in the traditional sense, both secular/political and spiritual/psychological, and in the historical and cultural sense of having the goal of “liberation” from that which is oppressive-repressive and, for “freedom” and the full human potential and evolution of Consciousness (Kosmos, God/Goddess, Gaia, etc.) itself.

The 2nd premise is, that it is a form of spirituality.

The perspective of an integral (fearlessness) spirituality requires that it both embrace all kinds of spiritualities (i.e., interpretations of Spirit), and at the same time be critical of all kinds of spiritualities and itself, as only one type of spirituality. This criticality is not based on rejection because another spirituality or religion is “different”— and thus, threatening to the status quo belief system. Rather, the integral spirituality critiques other spiritualities because they are potentially attempting to usurp the whole meaning of reality and provide the only interpretation of the earth-human-spirit relationship that is “true” and “right.” Integral spirituality, like ISOF, is not interested in simple dichotomies of “true” vs. “false” or “right” vs. “wrong” but sees that each spirituality in the “spectrum of consciousness” is partly true, partly false and, partly right and partly wrong. Wilber’s writing on all this gives a much more in depth articulation than we’re providing for this basic introduction.

The 3rd premise is, that there is a serious spiritual problem today (i.e., post-modern22 crisis) that requires an integral (fearlessness) approach to “repair” it to avoid continual building of a culturally-induced23 destructivity (toxification) on the planet. different interpretation than the norm within a religion (e.g., Sufism within Islam, Kabbahalist within Jewish tradition, or Mystical Christianity and Gnostic ideas within Orthodox Christianity). 22 We realize “post-modern” or “postmodernity” are very difficult to define and will be articulated more in later documents. Suffice it to say, that it is a time or era (post-WWII) in the West and highly industrialized nations, where (generally) people are turning to more and more distrust of “traditions” (“authorities”) of all kinds and a rebellious hyper-individualism is part of the result. Note: later, we’ll use Wilber’s definition of the main premises behind what he sees is the good side of postmodernity. Wilber’s view is unfortunately, among postmodernists (especially in the academic world) characteristically not taken into account, or merely discarded. Wilber’s thought is thus marginalized and we believe that is a regrettable error and move within higher education (and most spiritual) ‘circles’ today. 23 “Culturally-induced” is used poignantly here to emphasize the ISOFACRI focus on cultural work as part of the liberation (Enlightenment) agenda. The problem is not “cultures” or “cultural” per se, but the ideology of “culturalism,” (co-inhabitant with “fearism”) as will be articulated in other future documents. Our basic premise is that the “cultural” today in the 21st century particularly, via media/technologies and commercialism, contains the greatest forces for ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ We require a spirituality today and in the future that incorporates a cultural critique front and centre in its theorizing and practices (praxis).

Accepting ISOF is an integrally-informed spirituality, and a means of understanding and critiquing spiritualities (including itself), thus, one who follows ISOF has to take Wilber’s perspective of the “very heart of the problem of spirituality” today, seriously. In Wilber (2006: 274-301) an in depth analysis of the “problem of spirituality” in modernity and postmodernity is offered. Here, below, are a few highlights from Wilber’s historical, political and sociocultural analysis we ought to keep in mind while designing and building ISOF spirituality:

(a) “... the bright promise of spirituality as the core intelligence of ultimate concern is arrested.... Everywhere the bright promise of spiritual intelligence is crippled, cropped, and crucified, run into blind alleys of horrifying neglect, mugged in rational parking lots, suffocated with clouds of materialism, regressed to new-age infantilism [severe narcissism24], [and] housed in mythic and metaphysical nonsense...”. (p. 274)

(b) ethical spiritual discernment, as seen from Wilber’s critique and lament in the above quote, is crucial to an integral spirituality and ISOF’s ability to keep from becoming “arrested” (i.e., developmentally delayed, and/or pathological = falling into the trap of spiritualism)

(c) “... we can no longer simply say things like: ‘We are combining body, mind, soul, and spirit—and heart and community—to produce a truly integral approach”...” (p. 294) as such a ‘heap’ is not necessarily a ‘whole’ [holon], nor necessarily integral in the Wilberian sense because such a conglomerate combining (eclecticism) does not usually include the AQAL25 model (or

24 “What the Bleep Do We Know? The startling success of this indie film shows just how starved people are for some sort of [scientific] validation for a more mystical, spiritual worldview [i.e., altitudes or worldspaces 5 and above]. But the problems with this film are so enormous it’s hard to know where to begin. What the Bleep is built around a series of interviews with physicists and mystics, all making ontological assertions about the nature of reality and about the fact that— yes, you guessed it—‘you create your own reality.’ But you don’t create your own reality, psychotics do.... Bad physics and fruit-loop mysticism, and people are starving for this kind of stuff, bless them.... I’m sorry to have to be so harsh about this, because clearly the intentions are decent; but this is exactly the kind of tripe that gives mysticism and spirituality [5 and above] a staggeringly bad name among real scientists [and real mystics], all postmodernists, and anybody who can read without moving their lips” (Wilber, 2006, pp. 294-5). See Wilber (2002), Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free, for his critique of Boomeritis dis-ease (similar to the “you create your own reality”), which is a current plague of the boomer generation and many of their off-spring (in the West). Such Boomeritis is often based on a truncated narcissism that is largely emotional-egoically defensive and destructive to any communal qualities of intimate authenticity, or commitments, in relationships and social practices, because it center’s around the egoism (aggressivity) of “don’t tell me what to do!” (see Red-level-2 applied to everything). Boomeritis spirituality is one of Wilber’s and our ongoing pet-peeves, because it is so ‘fear’- based and won’t acknowledge it is and rather pretends to be bravado and courageous, “liberated” (i.e., non-conformist, etc.). Such “courage” (“fearless”) attitudes of Boomeritis are usually retro-regressive and confuse the “pre” from the “post” structures of consciousness, according to Wilber.

12 simply, for our purposes here, the “four quadrants” analysis); and that is a critical integral theory of reality/identity/perspectives that is quite unique to Wilber’s philosophy (too much for this document to unfold)

(d) we require a post-metaphysical spiritual revolution in these postmodern times in order “... to foreground the truth-power- knowledge complex and deal with it consciously, unlike metaphysics, which simply wields it” (p. 294)

(e) “Science [modernism] did not kill spirituality; the humanities themselves did” (p. 276); the “postmodern revolution” in thought (Wilber places between 1950-2000) killed and rejected “intro- spection, interiority, and subjectivity” and did this primarily through a battle in the humanities, what he called “the Great Left-Hand War between modernism and postmodernism” (which is more serious according to Wilber than the Right-Hand vs. Left-Hand battle (respectively) between “exterior is only real” vs. “interior is only real”-- this Great Left-Hand War,26 is between “Subjectivists” vs. “Intersubjectivists” (p. 278), the latter won the battle and likely will for sometime, says Wilber, with their intersubjectivism ideology which says: that we and our “perceptions” are first made in cultures/histories and that is all that reality comes down to (relativism)—that is, it is “constructed” (constructivism) by the places and cultures we are embedded in during our development and we cannot transcend cultural- conditioning (language, rules, codes, discourses, etc.)

(f) there is a liberating side to the winners’ (Intersubjectivists of postmodern deconstruction/poststructuralists) view, but it is limited and without “depth” and it has destroyed most all “quality of depth,” as Wilber articulates, creating a “Flatland ontology” (worldview, “anti-spirituality”), which is a reductionism of ‘Spirit’ (of consciousness, and the Upper Left quadrant ways of knowing)

From Vision To Pragmatics: Finding ‘Balance’

Wilber’s work and Michael’s tends to an abstract theorizing. With Michael’s work using fearlessness and integral theory (postmodernity), as core to a future ISOFACRI philosophical framework, there is always the question of pragmatic and empirical worth of such philosophy and analysis. Especially, there are going to be “conflicts”

25 Wilber (2006) identifies 8 major zones in knowledge/knowing, of which the four basic ones are Upper Left (mind), Lower Left (cultural), Upper Right (behavioral), Lower Right (structural); notice L-H side contains quadrants with an interest of knowing ‘interiors’ (experience) of reality and R-H side (Sciences) tend to be interested in “exteriors” (or the objective empirical truths only). This is a very oversimplified description of AQAL (see Wilber, 2006, pp. 35-9 for more details). 26 The Subjectivists inhabit the major methodologies of knowing in the Upper Left quadrant and the Intersubjectivists tend to inhabit and privilege the major methodologies of knowing in the Lower Left (Cultural) quadrant (see AQAL model diagram in Wilber’s books since 1995).

13 arise in viewpoints and values, as we put forth this document with our “truths” which mesh with some other views and clash with other’s. Integral theory is designed for handling the “conflicts” and working through to maintain ‘good relations’ despite our differences—perhaps, even working co-creatively with those differences. But this is not proven well in research and reasonable doubt is warranted.

We have a lot of experience in communities, including ISOF, but this proposed ISOFACRI postmodern integral perspective is ‘new’ for us and thus, we cannot defend it as other than part of a vision. Therefore, Barbara’s interest to somewhat ‘balance’ the abstraction in this vision brings forth a more feminine philosophical foundation that has revolved around her research in “arts as ritual” and feminist- based (and woman-based) and body-based modes of knowing.

Meike Bal bell hooks Luce Irigaray Trinh T. Minh-Ha four feminist postmodern philosophers who incorporate spirituality in their theory and practice and call for a change of the patriarchy requires a change of spiritual practice and understanding (Philip Wexler too)

Appendix I

Celestine Centre for Arts & Spiritual Education (CCASE)

This newer version of a vision for us came mainly from Michael’s critical watching of the movie version of The Celestine Prophecy (2005), by James Redfield, et al. Although, we could appreciate that something as sincerely “spiritual” and radical could be made into a movie for our contemporary times, we were convinced the artistic aesthetics of this movie (and others like this kind of film/story) are not up to the task of working with the “spiritual” domain (especially ‘new age’ ideas) very well. We saw Redfield attempting, like many authors, to promote a particular brand of “spiritual education” to the masses. We don’t mind that, as long as there is a good quality “spiritual education” attending all they hype and fame. We were sorely disappointed in what Redfield et al. came up with.

Michael’s version of “Celestine” is similar but different than Redfield and the name was catchy and eloquent for the scope of our new version. Barbara is less convinced but nonetheless it is a working title for now. We include a few of the initial diagrams and explanations Michael has prepared for the CCASE to give readers a feel for where it is going. Enjoy.

14 Figure 1

Figure 2

15 Figure 3