Mike Jay's Thoughts on Developmentalism
Business & Executive Coaching, Consulting and Leadership

Subscribe to Mailing List

What is Integral?

"Integral, whatever it is...has to feed people."

Simple, but no simpler; solves more problems that it creates.

In the effort to create an integral solution, simplicity must rule, yet differentiation and reintegration must guide any effort. In regards to depicting integral, we use the organic model of an onion rather than a linear depiction to remind us of the non-linear nature of emergence.

We need to ask whether great innovators have not been great precisely because
they have based themselves on results y and not only on ideas, however,necessary the latter may be (Piaget, 1971a, p. 46)

In short, there are a multitude of ways in which to decide what is integral.

Integral is easier to grasp if we define it by it’s taxonomy.

 Integral: essential to completeness; entire

Entire: having no element or part left out; whole

Whole: having all its proper parts or components; complete

Complete: having all necessary parts, elements, or steps; flawless

Flawless: free of defect in physical structure, form, imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness

Using the dictionary is often helpful to reach simplicity on the other side of complexity as Oliver Wendell Holmes might have suggested. Whatever integral is, it must create a whole systems lens or approach and foster whole-making. The following taxonomy is based on Domains, Perspectives, Dimensions, Frameworks, etc. The diagram at the right is misleading because you'll try to make sense of it through a non-integral lens and get caught up in the lines of demarcation I've drawn. It will be difficult for you to see what's there because you see things in 2 dimensions rather than seeing the wholeness or curves of reality.

In the following treatise, I'm going to provide an integral lens...you be the judge whether or not it meets the tests you've set for integral validity, or whole making.

However before I do, I'm going to caution you about identifying integral through a comprehensive approach. In the mere suggestion that something is comprehensive or whole for that matter, you automatically assume a boundary which doesn't exist if something is whole. It seems paradoxical, doesn't it? Yet, if you pretend you've got it all, i.e. comprehensive, you've just created a more sophisticated box. This is why you'll read about an integral lens versus integral as an approach.

Why does everyone speak of stages? One tries to construct stages because this is an indispensable instrument for the analysis of formative processes. Genetic psychology attempts to envisage the construction of mental functions, and stages are a necessary instrument for the analysis of these formative processes. But I
must vigorously insist on the fact that stages do not constitute an aim in their own right. I would compare them to zoological or botanical classification in biology, which is an instrument that must precede analysis (Piaget, 1977, p. 817).

Integral is a "form" of instrumentation, just like there are "different" ways to play any musical score on many different instruments, the orchestration of the whole is more important than a comprehensive approach. Be careful not to box yourself in, regardless of how sophisticated an approach you take to do so.

If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease. If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence. To understand the mystery of this One essence is to be released from all entanglements. When all things are seen equally the timeless Self-essence is reached. No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state. -Seng-Tsan, Verses On The Faith Mind

Creating an integral lens.

An integral lens, which includes metadomains of effect...and perhaps intent would have to at least onclude these domains: [there are many more, but this is enough conceptualization to avert serious errors in analysis in my opinion, without making the system so complex, people can't use it in analysis.]

• personal
• professional
• business
• network [used to define the properties of all organizing systems such as group, community, nation, region, country, culture, etc.]

In order to scale your perspective, one has to begin to synthesize a metasystematic approach, even if the leaders are incapable of functioning at this level, an integral guide can create a synthesis of this approach called: cynthetics; where creativity is synthesized at a higher level than inherently possible in the decision-making cadre.

Yet, these metadomains are NOT enough to qualify the lens as integral from my perspective.  We must include perspectives of:

• internal
• external
• financial
• developmental

...to correlate the domains with a perspective emerging the  system of metadomains as the system scales over time.

Still not integral.  Consideration in dimensions of time is essential:

• past
• now
• near
• far

...to name some easy to remember candidates. 

We may have to also include phases and spaces into the Integral Equation.

Phases simply could be identified as entering, nodal and exiting, as Clare W. Graves notes in his double-helix theory. Or one could be much more sophisticated and use the transition states that Commons, et al refer to in their theory of hierarchical complexity.

Space is a term I prefer over stage. While stage is important and distinctly valuable, I believe that it is too easy to get caught in the lower-level reasoning that goes along with stage and the linear complexity of stage, which limits the non-linear complexity of space. Space is a stage effect...and in some cases, perhaps a stage cause. Space could actually be indicative of multiple stages and therefore loosens us from the trap of linear reasoning. I hope to come back and write more about this at some point. But for now, I just wanted it on the table. Since this theory of mine is evolving rapidly, I want to keep adding pieces of understanding that are coming to me over time with using the model. A quick and easy way to consider space is to use the colors in Spiral Dynamics® to pin the space or facets in the Rubiks Cube Analogy Protocol and viola, a 6 dimensional lens.

An Integrally Informed Approach

What this simple process does is allow the human (relative) mind to focus into a context (usually brought about by conditions.) that is formed by a domain, perspective and dimension of time--as a result of categorization and nothing else--in reality there is no distinction of domain, perspective, dimension, phase or space; only meaning made through categorization. 

Sense-making not categorization

The focal activity of making sense, through sense-making rather than categorization is necessary to explain or make tangible and concrete any integral practice as actionable by a meaning-maker. 

Without a context, the whole-making is whole-making of what? 

For some: it is enough to merely consider content, or perhaps context created through conditions of life, work and community.  However, trying to create an integral lens requires additional constituents as part of a minimum for RightACTION™, some of which are:  content, context, conditions, code and culture as emergent through the interaction with a core meaning making system. 

Integral is actionable, or it's not integral.

In order for whole-making, or what's more complex--sense making--to occur through an integral lens, we must create actionable frameworks with which to center integral work; otherwise it is not integral work and it is some other work.  Notice I'm not making a judgment here about what is integral and what is not integral, you'll have to be the judge.  What I'm discussing is how to focus through an integral lens to create actionable practices that integrate the whole.

However, here is a simple way to view integral through a lens that fits together like a Rubik's Cube if you can imagine the interaction of six different instrumentations (spaces) of the music at one time all playing off the same score? 

While this metaphorical rubix contains a number of metaelements, it doesn't answer all the questions:

"These four key aspects of a dynamic system – multiple factors, complex interactions, multilevel contexts, and multilevel time scales – work together to generate changes that are complex, emergent, and self-organized."

Fischer, et al

Don Beck [ www.spiraldynamics.net ] has referred to similar characteristics of these actions as Codes, Conditions and Content. I've not seen Don use context and culture with his 3Cs, however I think he would agree that it is either inferred or assumed in his 5 deep strata leading to a consideration or application of context in the whole-making process; we add "core" to the mix, which is not a form of instrumentation but inborn motivational dynamics, which are instrumented through culture, code, conditions, context and content. Notice the ordering of these is from least plastic to most plastic and does not follow the order of the 5-deep strata used by SDi.

In emergenics, I use the terminology of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals to frame the same dynamic inquiry with an additional component: epigenetic rules; both primary (genes) and secondary (memes).

Regardless of what taxonomy you use to define dynamic development or what we refer to as developmentalism, consideration of some of the following elements in the periodic chart of development are often helpful.

As an aside, but an important one, here is a chart prepared by Susann Cook-Greuter illustrating a comparison between stage theories. You have to be real careful in comparing theories however as most theorists "fit" the theories of other theorists to their own theory and it is a distorted, although helpful starting points when considering lines of development.

There are lines of development that can be viewed through this lens, as can any subject or object separately and in combination at a designated level. However using lines is moving out of the integral dynamic and back into reductionism, so beware.

A line example might be self-control, or optimism, where a characteristic can be differentiated across a number of levels or stages that transcend and include each other in terms of hierarchical complexity. Again, careful with transcend and include. Only truly developmental task dynamics uses this system, the biggest part of development is not transcend and include related. Yet, it's a delusionary game to think that we can pull development into and out of lines, anymore than we can extricate synapses and dendrites into linear components in the brain.

Sometimes it is easier to talk in the macro and then progress to map the micro over time as greater levels of differentiation are possible as one metaphorically or literally peels the onion of our awareness, purpose, competence and well-being...and then perhaps not.  In any case, here are some interesting examples of metalines or what I refer to as sometimes a stream in a developmental web: where a combination of interacting agents, rules, tensions and conditionals are woven together in an emergent process which literally creates a metaline, or developmental web that can measured as a single characteristic--at a particular level.  This type of self-organization and commensurate emergence creates a new definable/measurable entity.  It is often easier at times to discuss these emergent characteristics rather than the underlying interacting systems.

Metaline (lines of lines; or strands or streams) examples may consist of lines similar to Gardner's 8 intelligences:

• verbal/linguistic;
• logical/mathematical;
• spatial;
• bodily/kinesthetic;
• musical;
• interpersonal;
• intrapersonal.
• naturalistic

Each of these metalines can be discerned through the integral lens created above in relation to a subject/object and the content issues surrounding each situation. There are an in-determinant number of lines, but whichever line of development you choose, it can be viewed integrally using the integral operating system.

Often, this may be a helpful step:

To identify the subject/object relationship through an integral lens is key to decision making efficacy. [Kegan's work stemming from the developmental lines of Piaget, Perry and others is a good example.]

For instance, identifying the specific subject/object relationship of a line that is large enough or contains enough sub elements to be called a strand such as affective when we considered the personal, professional, business and network domains of effect through an internal, external, business and financial set of perspectives across dimensions of time: the past, now, near and far: in relation to the resolution of the 'C's:culture, conditions, codes, context, content both in the demand or goal environment and in the organism.

This will seem tedious in the beginning until people become familiar and accustomed to taking multiple perspectives naturally as a part of problem solving. We have been training our coaches in this system for six years and it does begin to become a part of second nature over time.

Until that time they can be guided by an observer, coach, manager, or leader who understands that including multiple domains, perspectives and dimensions in almost all cases I've come across has improved the quality of the decision making. Very seldom does a narrow approach prove more beneficial unless only single loop learning is desirable. It may be efficient to design integrally and guide single loop or stratified behavior.

A short side track for clarification:

In some ways, a line could be considered a competence as noted above. The competence being an measurable characteristic of a hierarchical line which is made up a developmentally scaled set of behaviors usually aggregated in levels. We know the EI Theory of Performance postulated by Daniel Goleman follows this developmentally scaled system designed to produce competence.

When an instrumented approach may identify criteria such as empathy (a line of its own), we could apply the integral lens to flesh out what the ecology of empathy was through an integral lens.

E.g., what does empathy mean in terms of personal, professional, business, or network effect? Other forms of inquiry or dialogue created from the knowledge of the integral lens could elicit actionable data for consideration. In other words, by using an integral lens, we differentiate empathy throughout the integral ecology of the leaders behavior, and provide insight into the higher and/or lower level needs.

Now, some may be confused by what appears to be another line = empathy in the taxonomy, but this allows me to introduce a key point.  When a line becomes differentiated through an integral lens, instrumentation or dynamic inquiry, we can refer to those differentiations as lines and the original "line"--now differentiated--as a strand. 

Example: Original Line = Empathy

Through a process of differentiation empathy is differentiated into other lines such listening attentively, putting oneself in other's shoes, attention to people versus task, slowing down goal acquisition and other elements which make up the panorama of empathy.  Empathy then becomes an integrated strand differentiated through lines as mentioned above.

Strand examples might be perceptual, behavioral, affective and symbolic as they can be differentiated further (Kolb). This helps us understand that as the onion is peeled--around and down--and awareness becomes alive with meaning that the taxonomy accommodates the differentiation of a line into lines, thus making the now-differentiated original line--a strand.

It is also important to note that a strand is connected by line development.  Therefore, if something is a strand, it is differentiated by line development. The strand can only progress based on line development and is therefore chained by lines. For instance, in the model referenced, the learning styles model by Kolb. He indicates that the perceptual line is limited or supported through development in the symbolic line, affective line and behavioral line. That as one progresses, the ability of the other to progress hierarchically in terms of complexity is enhanced. If one lags, the opposite is true and the development of the strand is constrained.

An integral lens provides opportunity for line, thus strand differentiation and self-organization/emergence at a more integrated level, which is often more encompassing of requirements in the environment.

Here is another strand compilation, that could in fact be further differentiated.  [If it seems that differentiation is the key to integral, then you're getting it.  Jung wasn't so far off in my view.]

Network Resilience Instincts Inclusion Power Accountability Authority Responsibility Integration Universality Emergence Energy

In the same vein, if we were to apply an integral lens, as defined above across a number of strands say for instance, personal across instincts, inclusion, power, and accountability--as an example, we would be discussing a stream.

Streams are created when we extend the integral lens across lines or strands using domains and perspective to differentiate the lines contributing to the integration. Streams are feeding the rivers of development and are a constant flow with or without our attention.

In the empathy case above, we find that it would be helpful to further differentiate the network of those behaviors creating the perception of empathetic behavior into a developmental web, where non-linear relationships would exist among the 'differentiated' lines. 

While this may seem confusing, in reality it is not necessary to utilize this taxonomy directly but notice indirectly the level of awareness and capability stemming from that awareness to make the data perceived actionable when people are guided using this paradigm.

In order to bring about the integration, it is often a requirement to bring about differentiation.  For with differentiation, we identify the constructs and linkages that are created by relationships among the subject/object environment.

[Side Note: Premature Integral: Read Article by Chris Cowan]

Let's look at a visual depiction of the creation of the integral lens:

Complexity Level 1:

Short Acknowledgement and disclaimer:

In the relative world as opposed to what some refer to as the absolute world, we work with tangible, rather than totally abstract elements.  There is no right or wrong here, but for most of the world, working in the absolute world is not going to engender any relative progress in most cases.  While some will indicate that relative progress or evolution is a moot point, I feel differently.  I consider absolute to be emergent and thus accomplished through the appropriate adaptation or evolution of the relative world.  Others see the absolute as always available. While I respect this opinion and believe it to be true for some, most people will not be able to access this absolute level except as temporary states at this point in our evolution of consciousness.  While I don't want to discount the absolute, I want to focus on the relative...on feeding people.

The duality of subject/object in the relative existence: [consider these depictions as ways to explain a non-linear emergence in a linear world]

A subject is considered in a domain:

:each subject domain has an object domain (in the relative world)

this interaction creates a subject/object relationship.

:each subject domain also has one (often multiple perspectives) subject perspective and counter-veiling object perspective:

:each subject/object domain and subject/object perspective has a subject/object dimension in time.

 

these counter-veiling forces form a self-organized, emergent dissipative structure that forms away from equilibrium to deal with the energy balances/imbalances in the gross, subtle and causal fields of the relative ecology. [Gross, subtle and causal are states which wisdom literature have indicated as existing to create a relative existence, or what I refer to as ecology of consciousness in the relative metadomain.]

Another way to look at this is from three theories:

• espoused (what we think or say we believe)
• action (what we intend)
• use (observed behaviors)

Looking out: [using the geometric progression we established a metaphorical Rubik's cube]

Looking back (in):

 

The interaction of the composites produce our linear depiction of what is a non-linear emergence. Perhaps at some point, our graphics will be able to more accurately depict these energy fields.

Complexity Level 2:

In this level, we give consideration to expanding the cube as a full circle of existence through the addition of power, accountability, authority and responsibility faces. We create additional context by adding code to the formula.  Initially in business we are concerned with four specific "code" areas: power, accountability, authority and responsibility.  These four code areas produce an amalgam of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals that create more perspective that can be differentiated before applying integration.  The integral lens is less myopic as we increase differentiation

Power: Defined as the ability to do work, express a direction, consideration or passion outwardly or inwardly to constitute an action or nonaction, or more efficiently, provide energy for rightaction.

Accountability: Defined as the ability to be held and to hold accountable rightaction: the right people, doing the right things, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons to get the right results.

Authority: defined as power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior or to be accepted as in control, demand, respect or as a source of freedom to act granted by one in authority.

Responsibility: defined as the quality or state of being responsible as in moral, legal, mental or ethical accountability or having the burden of being responsible.

When we are able to create this infrastructure of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals, we can more fully identify the constituents of the Rubik's Cube and the composite or emergent equilibrium that occurs in response to an orientation to power, accountability, authority and responsibility as basic '1st' tier codes. [Keep in mind there are limitations to my graphic ability and I'm doing as best I can to depict these agents, rules, tensions and conditionals so you can grasp the abstraction I'm discussing here in a metasystematic manner of mental processing: where simultaneous strands are being woven cross-paradigmatically into a "whole" paradigm.]

 

 

Complexity Level 3:

At this level of complexity we're beginning to assume metasystematically a number of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals in any one paradigm, so we begin to add culture, content, conditions and codes together to create a context.  Context is fluid, as in fact, all of the other paradigms: content, code, conditions and culture (collective effects of individuals self-organizing to create a stand-alone set of codes different from the individual codes that make them up).

Each one of them could be considered on their own and are often considered separately and integrated by some in a linear fashion to create a version of integral.  I won't say those who do this version of linear dynamics is not integral, however it is limited in terms of what it can provide in terms of solutions and consequently 'creates as many problems as it solves.' 

We attempt to avoid this state of linear integral by considering a cross-paradigmatic approach that is multi-dimensional.  This may seem abstract and difficult and perhaps it is if you try to examine the whole as the whole (each whole is yet encompassed or nested in yet a more complex whole; or so it seems thus far in evolutionary history).

Yet, by examining the emergent phenomena around the whole-making, we can often reduce complexity enough on the onset through differentiation to produce some very efficient problem solving without relying on the complex mental processing that is required in a cross-paradigmatic approach.

Basically, here is how to accomplish this metasystematic guided approach:

Content: Identify and differentiate

• Domains
• Perspectives
• Dimensions
• Codes

Context: Identify and differentiate

• Domains
• Perspectives
• Dimensions
• Codes

Conditions: Identify and differentiate

• Domains
• Perspectives
• Dimensions
• Codes

Culture: Identify and differentiate

• Domains
• Perspectives
• Dimensions
• Codes

Notice that you could three different sets (so now we get sets of sets) of domains, perspectives, dimensions and codes or paradigms/systems running.  I often label these against a particular code hierarchy both in the individual and in the collective as:

• espoused theory = content
• theory in action = context
• theory in use = conditions

Depending on the overlap or congruence between and among these maps of reality that are created paradigmatically, the emerging agents, rules, tensions and conditionals which make up complexity level 4 may be constrained by the inability to work through an integral lens at a sufficient complex level to meet the demands.

 

Complexity Level 4:

In the environment or ecology--even a memescape, we have to consider a set of emergent properties at "any level" differentiated through waves (the event-based effect that creates disturbances in the streams), streams, strands, then lines and viewed through whole making (the act of holistic action) as a set of combinatorial emergent properties.

Take for example, this viewpoint of the professional domain of effect being considered through interactive domains of effect where the effects or recursion of the professional domain are influencing and being influenced by the domains, the perspectives one may choose to consider and any number of strands, which may have "lines of flux" creating a field of interwoven thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, values and actions:

An example using the "professional" domain to illustrate how it is made up of the other three which are bound to it by recursive flux...a shift in one creating a shift in all. In the 'Big Mac' diagram below, we look at some of the energy in the system that is creating a dissipative structure at each layer or domain of contribution. While this is a mere slice of composite relative reality depicted here, you can see that demands or focal activity at any locus of control affects and shifts the entire intelligence.

Each level in a line provides an opportunity to view the line from/in a stage or composite set of 'energetic' frameworks creating a active worldview or focal point.

Step by step:

Step 1: Identifying components of the codes (using only 4 codes for the example, there are at least 10 that we are humanly aware at the present time in human evolution, however evolution is an open system, so this material becomes out-dated, or updated as one might say, minute by minute in evolutionary time:

Again, individual and collective codes (culture) or the interplay between primary and secondary epigenetic rules are key to relate.

Step 2: Identifying the differences in each level of consideration:

Notice, that in order to differentiate fully before integrating, one has to look through a differentiated integral lens.

 

Complexity Level 5: The Formation of a Worldview or Framework

In the tumult of world affairs our individual voices may not be heard, but together we, and our worldview, will command attention. — Elmer Green, Ph.D.
 

Worldviews can be extremely complex and inordinately simple.  For instance, I might have a worldview that prescribes that "looking out for oneself" is of primary importance.  Or even a worldview, where "collaboration at all costs" is worth dying over. Though juxtaposed, these worldviews interact, sometimes within the same subject/object relationship at different demand points.

Streams, Strands, Lines making up developmental webs become suspended, supported, altered and developed by and through worldviews attempting to cope with varied conditions. Yet worldviews may vary throughout any stage or level because of the emergent nature of reality. 

Frameworks are different than lines or stages--although they may appear as stages--as they may be skipped, combined and accessed as life-conditions or demand alter the requirement to call upon states which create the conditions for non-linear emergence responses to varying demands within the ecology or constellation of worldviews.

As a side note, in my view, I agree with the contention that it is life-conditions or demands in concert with the epigenetic emergenics (agents, rules, tensions and conditionals present at primary, secondary, tertiary and now, quantum levels of emergenics: more info here) that create the emergent neurophysiology that creates an emergent or self-organized response to conditions, yet recursively with an improvement in coping ability...to create life-conditions. 

Generally, I would agree that advanced stages come after less sophisticated stages, but due to the emergent nature of aliveness (life with reflective consciousness), life can create non-linear emergence with characteristics that would combine, yet not transcend, but vault-over linear transcendence.  Therefore, the ability to transcend linear development, such as in a line, is a feature of a framework to respond with non-linear emergence, as opposed to a level that can't be skipped when referring to line or strand development.

The difference in this taxonomy:

Lines and stages are linear, although stages may be non-linear when referencing frameworks, although are likely to be observed in linear sequences...if nothing more than the limited ability of most observers to view actually outside of a serial, yet linear frame; or the unfolding of non-linear complexity.

Yet, once complexity has unfolded, it makes available it's "field of memes" to all systems; memes (secondary epigenesis) being the cultural equivalent of a gene (primary epigenesis)--thus having the capacity to spread through the field with the aid of those infected metaphorically with the meme, such as in a virus example. 

Anyone can catch a cold because the virus is available to us all, yet not everyone does.  There is no requirement for some linear sequence, a viral attack is non-linear, we do not understand why some get colds and some don't, when in fact colds are everywhere...just like we don't understand how someone could behave in a way that seems totally beyond their ability, yet it happens. 

This non-linear emergence is often difficult to explain, but nonetheless is real, possibly temporal, or as some would say create the stretch in the system which permits permanent adoption, such as the successful behavior being reinforced by the experimentation with even more non-linear behavior.  My guess is that once humanity is challenged with life-conditions, that entanglement (the capacity for multiple or ubiquitous connections in a field of possibilities) does the rest, making available to all humanity those connections which would permit sporadic non-linear emergence for what appeared as unknown reasons or synchronicity.

Therefore my contention would be that emergence is sufficiently available to produce effects which are not linear and are perceived as out of line with current capability.  On the same hand, there appears to be sufficient biological evidence that people are in fact NOT created equal in regards to capacity for the very reasons that have been stated in the treatise thus far.  These biological or genetic differences must be honored rather than discarded in favor of noble savage, blank slate or ghost in the machine theories that would pretend that we could be anything if we just try hard enough.  The interactions that appear between capacity and capability must be allowed into awareness such that the prime directive becomes the realization of potential and its contribution to the whole versus trekking up ladders created by complexity or as "lemmings in full march to the cliff."

In other words integral has a lot more to do with circulation than it does verticality.  This much be kept in mind if we are to grasp that vertical within capacity emanates from emergence and not a linear growth in a line.  Yet, linear growth in a line is a contribution to capability and will create vertical potential. I'll discuss these in later materials.  Suffice it to say at this point, the what of integral needs to be established before the how is employed, or by definition, integral is sub-optimized.

Parallel streams as noted encourage life to emerge in much more complex ways than a single stream would permit.  It is this emergence in parallel streams that most informs the non-linear stage emergence.

Stages, which may be combined in a non-linear fashion to form an emergent center of gravity among centers of gravity could be considered to be observed as a composite framework.

Example: Some at stage 4 in one line, stage 3 in another line or strand (depending on the ability to differentiate and hold more variables at anyone level of mental processing) and stage 2 in yet another line could be in a different metastage than a person in a different stage in each of those lines.  This makes the emergent potential of any one set of criteria very complex when compared with another set of criteria.  Most observers are unable to differentiate the variability in these developmental webs at levels that explain real differences in lines.

The framework is stable, yet OUT of equilibrium, far out of equilibrium; even if for only a moment in an altered state, or as it coalesces into a more permanent stage. Yes, these frameworks are far from equilibrium, yet dissipating sufficient energy created from tensions in life conditions to remain intact--free from chaos and bifurcation.  An emergent framework may resist history or change and provide appropriate capability to cope at the chosen stage reinforcing its metaphoric gravitational or attractive field.  We might refer to stage as the combinatorial effect of life conditions and commensurate ability to cope with those life conditions.

Stages (which can be identified as being at levels) when referencing frameworks are different than lines with levels/stages in this taxonomy because we have to account for non-linear emergence which can't be explained by lower levels.  Yet, this emergence is stable, often in an altered state in the beginning or at it may be utilized to adapt to a particular emergence of a non-routine demand, but even in more permanent stages.

[Often, these patterns of emergence guide formation of more connections in our neurophysiology increasing density over time of the "matched system/conditions.] 

Lines provide a contribution to the worldview as do stages, yet the worldview is formed from the emergence of frameworks as if in a "gravitational field" that is maintained as a particular map of reality, which may be constructed from the combinatorial nature of life conditions and coping systems.

Almost all developmental theory agrees that stages are discernible and can be identified with specific emergent properties.

Frameworks emerge integrally

Frameworks are created in three basic areas that are both distinct and consiliatory as an observed worldview on these levels.  At times, through less than coherent conditions in aliveness (form + process + matter + meaning), we get multiple worldviews. [Read Emergenics for background on this formula.

The three areas of consideration are adapted from Argyris as his contention and I agree, that people espouse a theory (talk) through language, either verbal, non-verbal or in writing that is not always the same as the theory in use, which is observed.  I've added an additional theory that I couldn't see as clear in Argyris of a transitioning theory of action or context in the taxonomy identified above.

What is Integral depends...

Each of these theories may create a different worldview from the frameworks in each theory--at different stages, none of which have transcended lower levels of complexity.  My sense is that coherence in these theories produces well being, lack of coherence--tensions that seek to keep the aliveness suspended in the tension.  I'll leave it here for now, you can project your own spiritual ideas from these remarks.

Therefore, it is my belief that multiple worldviews exist from a variety of conciliating frameworks in action and non-action producing what is both viewed as reality by the subject and the object and can be discerned as discrete stages.

This dual meaning of stages can be extremely confusing, just as the multiple meanings of almost any paradigm producing entity would be.  Take the example of game.  Game might mean the games within games, or a game of games, or yet, gaming of games.  Each use of the symbolism is different, confusing without context and often indifferentiable by the causal observer.

Obviously this becomes quite complex and messy.  Thank goodness.

"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Steve Andreas

Take for instance, the following diagram, which outlines a set of domains, perspectives, strands in a field of potential:

The diagram gives us an opportunity to consider a quadrant approach mapped to domains, perspectives and "different" time dimensions then we have previously considered.  In other words, converting time relatively to cognitive, emotional, ethical and social time scales can create an entirely different viewpoint in terms of integral.  The model has amazing adaptability when you consider that we move away from all "linear" forms of integral into non-linear aspects of emergence.  We call this emergenics through an integral lens picking up the value in emergence as a non-linear set of waves, versus 'only' a linear unfolding of complexity.  This much more advanced form of integral permits the boundarylessness we need in tackling tough personal, professional, business and network challenges.

Let's recap.

1. Domains of effect are visible consequences that emerge as a result of behavior.
2. Perspectives are viewpoints that can be observed singly or in combination.
3. Dimensions of time allow us to relativize the observation.
4. Any specific line of development can be view through an integral lens: domain of effect, perspective and time dimension.
5. Power, accountability, authority and responsibility are coded to create differentiation.
6. Lines contribute to stages and may be observed at a level of subject/object relation.
7. Lines when they become differentiated into additional lines are called strands signifying differentiation of a previously named line.
8. Stages may be represented as worldviews that consist of emergent frameworks created through the interaction of life conditions and the ability to cope with those conditions. 
9. When a domain of effect is considered through lines, levels, strands or stages, we discuss it as a stream.
10. A developmental web is created when an integral lens identifies multiple domains, perspectives, time dimensions, lines, strands, stages, streams, or framework as a map of a reality called a worldview which has a particular subject/object relationship with the territory of reality. [These subject/object relationships themselves can be defined in terms of ecological complexity and are displayed in the Foundations of Emergenics chapter. Sometimes, the visual helps to show the difference in subject/object complexity.]
11. Worldview is determined through the integral lens; framework through the emergence of worldview.
12. Worldviews can be held personally, professionally, in/by business and in/of networks in any perspective: internal, external, business or network in any specific or continuum of time dimension: past, now, near, far.
13. Frameworks, or maps of reality that are used to navigate life conditions are emergent systems that arise out of combinatorial effects and interactions of domains, perspectives, time dimensions, lines, strands, stages, streams and states of being, having, doing and becoming in reference to memetic codes.
14. Frameworks arise out of espoused theory, action theory and theory in use are are distributed across the behavioral landscape, often asymmetrical based on requirements.

Observing through an integral lens, whether it be any/all streams, lines, strands, stages, states, worldviews or developmental webs; a non-differentiated/integrated ecology of subject/object relationships is not enough to qualify as integral.

What is integral?

Integrally informed approaches are represented through five constructs:

• Horizontal Scope
• Horizontal Complexity
• Vertical Scale
• Vertical Complexity
• Vertical Mobility

Yet, before we discuss these constructs we have to set the stage for their emergence through the introduction of a taxonomy that formulate the basis for understanding the emergent properties of developmental webs.

Emergence occurs as a result of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals conciliating to form higher forms, processes, matter and meaning making properties which can not be reduced into their constituent parts. [Form, process, matter and meaning are the four constituents of aliveness discussing in the Foundation of Emergenics.]

Example 1:  Awareness in human being is created through the interrelationships between chemicals, neural pathways, rules that guide interactions and a set of conditionals (is, and, if, then, or if and only if conditions) that are still as of yet, largely unaccounted for at the present time, but nonetheless evident in mental processing.

Awareness, or reflective consciousness can not be reduced to its parts.  Therefore, by our definition, awareness emerges as a result of the combinatorial effects of a set of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals, creating more complex form, process, matter and meaning making properties than the underlying constituents, which may then result in the new set of properties becoming yet another agent, rule, tension or conditional, or all of them at once.

Example 2: An ant colony functions as a result of a set of agents (ants), rules (identified through pheromone communication as a set of does and don'ts), tensions occurring in the ant environment and a set of conditionals that arise that effect the emergence of activity of any sort.

The colony becomes sentient (able to respond to tensions) as an emergent property of rather dumb agents, acting on simple rules, in light of a variety of tensions, triggering a set of conditionals: if then, if and only if conditions.

Please take note of these ideas. They validate my own concern with Ken Wilber's synthesis of so many theories into a catch-all lens. I take note here of my efforts to reduce and therefore accept culpability as well. The difference between Wilberians and myself is that I use emergence in a totally different manner, noting, as below that emergence doesn't always mean complexity. [Y. Bar-Yam. Dynamics of Complex Systems. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1997.] It can mean emergent simplicity. The key is that hierarchical development is NOT the same as emergent hierarchy and therefore to lump them into the same pot is creating philosophical suicide at more complex levels of understanding. Even for those who crave simplicity--it's not a good idea--read on. From: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin/pdf/0609/0609011.pdf The conventional explanation of emergence presented in the previous section is unsatisfactory. The use of an emergence hierarchy to account for emergent properties is alarmingly circular, given that the levels are defined by the existence of emergent properties7. In hierarchy theory, levels are most often considered to be epistemic, although seemingly only to avoid the burden of proof that falls on an ontological position. Many hierarchy theorists prefer to remain reality-agnostic. Unsurprisingly, the inconclusive nature of levels means that explanations of emergence in terms of levels of description are unable to resolve its nature – is emergence a natural phenomenon or an artifact of the process of observation? To bypass this impediment, we need to define emergence without invoking the concept of levels, which we argue can be accomplished using scope, resolution and state8. Scope is defined by a spatial boundary. Spatial is used in the broadest sense of the word to include conceptual and formal, as well as physical spaces, provided the system has a physical manifestation (spatial refers to the set of components, in contrast to temporal, which refers to the dynamics of those components). The scope of a system representation is the set of components within the boundary between the associated system and its environment. If an observer shifts from representing the system to representing a component, such that the component is now the system of interest, the scope of observation has narrowed. Conversely, when the scope is increased to include components that were previously part of the environment, the scope has broadened. There is also a temporal dimension to scope, which defines the set of moments of time over which the system is represented. S denotes scope, while S(x) and S( ) denote only the spatial and temporal dimensions of scope respectively. Resolution is defined as the finest spatial distinction between two alternative system configurations. If a fine (high) and a coarse (low) resolution representation have the same scope, the fine resolution can distinguish a greater number of possibilities, n, and therefore each state contains more (Shannon) information, H = −Pni=1 pi log(pi) = log(n), assuming all states are equiprobable. A closely related concept is scale, which is a transformation by multiplication. The connection is that as a property is scaled up (multiplied) within a system, it can be detected at coarser resolutions. The distinction (which is rarely made) is that scale is independent of how the system is represented, whereas resolution is an attribute of the representation (scale is ontological, but resolution is epistemological). Once the resolution is set, this determines the ‘size’ of the components that comprise the system. There is also a temporal dimension to resolution, which defines the duration of a moment in time, where longer moments represent coarser (lower) resolutions. R denotes resolution, while R(x) and R( ) denote only the spatial and temporal dimensions of resolution respectively. The state of a system is the information that distinguishes between alternative system configurations up to some resolution at one moment in time. Macrostate M and microstate μ denote sets of states with two different resolutions and scopes, with the following macroto-micro relations: RM ≤ Rμ (1) SM ≥ Sμ (2) (RM, SM) 6= (Rμ, Sμ) (3) Intuitively, the macrostate has either a coarser resolution or a broader scope, or both. Let M′ ∈ MM and μ′ ∈ Mμ denote the sets of M′|μ and μ′|M respectively satisfying Eqns. 1-3. Also note that M and μ represent sets of states if S( ) > 1. This non-standard usage of the terms enables the representation of ensembles, and allows for emergent properties to be structured in time as well as space. There exist other factors that influence the representation of a system by an observer. They include perspective (some information at a particular resolution is hidden eg. the state of internal organs to the naked eye) and interpretation (eg. optical illusions that have multiple valid interpretations). However, we do not need to invoke these factors to account for emergence, so for simplicity they are excluded. End Quote What's important to take away here are these things: macro-state and micro-state occur at different resolutions scope is critical to determine before making any determination scale allows us to use coarser resolutions, but it's important to understand how the 'resolution' determines the attributes of the scope.

With this in hand, we can move to the crux of integral.

1. Integral is the capability, first to differentiate, then to reintegrate that differentiated set of criteria called culture, codes, conditions, context and content into an emergent ecology (utilizing Horizontal Scope, Horizontal Complexity, Vertical Scale, Vertical Complexity, and Vertical Mobility) which can not be reduced to a specific set of parts, yet produces a unique set of properties more complex than any parts through the combinatorial effects of emergence.

 

1. Integral requires a degree of capacity defined as complexity of mind that allows for the mobility in/of sufficient horizontal scope and complexity combined with concurrent vertical scale and complexity in tensions among differentiated worldviews towards an integration of capability to respond to life conditions through a developmental web or framework at any stage.

Addendum:

It becomes necessary to further differentiate stage into a developmental web, or emergent framework with a degree of permanence shown to resist change over time from states--a more temporary emergence shown to dissolve once the demand environment shifts in order to give flesh to the integral lens and meaning making system.

Stage is identified in many taxonomies throughout the developmental landscape including a variety of well-known contemporary agents such as Maslow, Piaget, Perry, Kohlberg, Graves and many others who have made significant contributions to present theories: Kegan, Commons, Fischer, Beck, Wilber and Seligman.

However, most of these stage theories are applicable to personal ego, moral, needs or professional development and are NOT applicable to systems.  Emergenics is a taxonomy which is independent of any locus of development or domain of context, code, conditions or content.

Emergenics is a conciliatory framework of inductive developmental theory that can be applied using the integral lens in any/all domains of effect, through any/all perspectives and across any/all dimensions of time in streams, lines, strands, stages, waves and webs to identify emergent frameworks and their combinatorial form, process, matter and meaning making properties which involve conditions, codes, context and content.

A brief mention of waves in integral theory as defined through emergenics provides a "probability" that behavior will emerge from the developmental framework or center of behavioral gravity when confronted with specific life conditions and demands.  We know that waves and particles are much the same thing in the quantum world and that a particle is merely a wave function, a probability that the particle will exist anywhere along the wave.  In this same metaphoric comparison, behavior is unknown until observed.  Yet, as in the quantum field, we know that observance influences the probability of the particle 'being' in anyone place.  In the same manner, we can begin to identify a wave probability that behavior will emerge along a developmental path when we identify the developmental web or framework in action or center of gravity.

The center of gravity or emergent code behavior is produced through the tensions between espoused theories, theories of action and theories (observed behavior) in use. The wave theory helps us understand the likely range of observed behavior as the center of gravity (coping capacity) confronts life/work demands produced in the ecology of being, having, doing and becoming...whether it be person, profession, business or network focused through internal, external, financial, or developmental perspectives in dimensions of time from past experience, into now, near and farvision.

Emergenics is the application of integral theory using emergence to create opportunities to improve problem solving across systems, whether they be human or non-human related in a multi-dimensional, ecological system of interacting variables across/in time.

Emergenics allows us to adopt some theory/practice constructs that allow the transcendence and support/repair with anticipation of emergent potential.

In recapping stage through emergenics, we hypothesized that emergent properties viewed as a developmental web or framework, worldview or stage can exist in and be separate from any one human, group or system of being, doing, having and becoming.

Let me repeat this in another way as the gravity of its meaning is significant to differentiate emergenics practice from any other stage theory and other integral taxonomies:

Networks of hierarchical complexity can exist independent of any one group or system at a different stage, or worldview without transcending and including prior stages of complexity in a non-linear system.

If a system requires that transcendence and inclusion of a prior level is required for movement to a higher level, it is classified as a line of development.  In this integral model depicted by emergenics, a stage can be depicted by non-linear emergence produced by underlying form, process, matter and meaning-making in a temporal frame called a state and in a permanent framework called a stage.

States can be induced through latent capacity, resilient systems and the satisfaction of needs, relieving stress/tension and producing security in the system [Enneagram] which permits attention to flow from a normal state to an altered state in a temporal frame.

Altered/temporal states can be utilized to explore higher level being, having, doing and becoming stages through peak experience, mindfulness, connection to spirit or the field of pure potentiality (absolute reality).

HOWEVER, induced altered states can be harmful when those states are induced unknowingly by others who manipulate decision making in those states, or as a result of those states decisions are made without sufficient support infrastructure.

Stages on the other hand are semi-permanent in terms of their ability to maintain themselves, almost independent of the consciousness, or unconscious motivation.

These emergent stages create attractor basins, which establish a 'metaphorical' gravitational (energy) field or constellation of worldviews--in the developmental web--that become agents themselves at a higher level with their own rules, tensions and conditionals.

A critical difference with Emergenics

These stages are non-linear in formation and can be differentiated from "lines" as a result.  While development of a line is linear, the development of behavior emanating from attractor basins exists independent of individual lines and can provide support for or resistance to growth in a line, but are not determined in a linear fashion as in line development.

It is NOT necessary for emergenic stages identified in this system to be formed through a linear transcend and include formula that exists in line development, therefore emergence of stages which have not transcended the prior stage are possible and in fact at times desirable according to the law of least effort.

Example: It is not necessary for an academic professor to engage in individual promotion of their services, as the object of their marketing is provided to them in the form of students acquired through a brand (university).  The stage of individual "hawking" of their talents as defined through an independent professional in perhaps the same field is not necessary and through the law of conservation, not developed.

Since the "system" provides the object of that stage of worldview, the professor is free to advance to whichever stage is likely to resolve the remaining tensions, nor degree of horizontal scope and complexity in the "provided stage" is sought, or required.  The stage may be technically be defined as transcended and included, but only if you are able to see that the system, rather than the person has made that possible.

Remove the system and the insufficient scope and complexity of the stage provided by the system is evident and perhaps a tension that must be "differentiated and reintegrated into the individuals worldview or constellation of agents, rules, tensions and conditionals."

Emergenics utilizes constructs contained in the stage theory produced by Don Beck and Chris Cowan from the book of the same: Spiral Dynamics, 1996. Yet these constructs are not emergent properties, behavior is the emergent property and therefore we have to be REALLY careful about imagining any kind of emergent properties from the shift in a system of memes.

The difference being in the non-linear emergence of these constellations of attractor basins rather than the transcendence and inclusion principle of just a line. Spiral Dynamics in my opinion is a line in some cases depicted by the original theory: that stages emerge hierarchically producing hierarchical emergence in systems, yet once emerged, the attractor basin acts in a non-linear fashion to attract emergence based on the personal, professional, business and network accumulation of memetic matter over the acts of being, having, doing and becoming in relationship with subject/object domains produced by the attractor basins at a variety of stages.  Those that would classify Spiral Dynamics as a line, in my opinion, do not fully grasp the theoretical/practical and experiential potential of emergent SD.

It is necessary to understand that memetic development, or for that matter genetic development is both a linear and non-linear set of constructs operating as two sides of the same coin--a dual, yet non-dual paradox. A person, profession, business or network is a developmental web, not a developmental line.  Even though agents in that web are linear and require linear development, the integral system acknowledges that development waits for no one, including the transcendence and inclusion precept proffered by some.  Others, including Fischer at Harvard have written extensively on this phenomena, so I don't want people getting the idea that it originated here...which in my view, adds more credibility to the contention.

Before I show you a constellation which attempts to depict this developmental web, or constellation, let me mention two more tensions, in addition to genetics (nature) and memetics (nurture).  They are denetics (espoused theory through language--spoken, written, or conveyed through non-verbals) and bemetics (theory in use, or observed behavior).  In the Foundation of Emergenics I outline the tensions produced by these systems through differentiation and reintegration into a unpredictable, yet observed emergent set of properties that can be classified into attractor basins.

The following diagram combines a number of the constructs discussed above by depicting a developmental web.  Behavior produced through decision making would emerge from the capability/capacity ratio engendered by the tensions in emergenics (the emergence of agents, rules, tensions and conditions from genetics, memetics, denetics and bemetics) demonstrated by horizontal scope and complexity (the ability in any one or combination of basins), vertical scale and complexity (the number of basins in terms of capacity and capability) and the mobility to use those capacities and capabilities to produce a resilient equilibrium among a broad array of life conditions.

While this diagram is busy, it is important to note the simplicity of viewing worldviews or frameworks at stages in a constellation of increasing complexity in an array of tensions.

Each worldview or emergent framework is represented through a specific form, process, matter relationship and meaning making system.

While it is beyond the scope of this discussion to delve into the complexity formulated through the interacting agents, rules, tensions and conditionals at every level, stage, or worldview, we can summarize what is integral into a very practical framework in the following way.

Integral validity occurs when sufficient representation of all contributing systems is evident through an integral lens encompassing the differentiated and integrated worldviews.  The worldviews can simply be identified through the following model of resilience which corresponds to the representation above of the attractor basins using a keyword for each constellation:

• Instincts

• Inclusion

• Power

• Accountability

• Authority

• Responsibility

• Integration

• Universality

• Emergence

• Energy

Resilience (as a consequence or outcome) or the combinatorial effects produced by the above formula is key to persistence in the face of barriers, navigation through uncertainty, transcendence of failure and anticipatory responses to life/work demands over/in time viewed as efficient (simpler, but not too simple) and effective (solves more problems than the response creates).

I will admit that with the number of variables involved, this discussion has become complex and perhaps dislocated from any practical use of this system.  However, the bottom line is essentially:

As the world becomes more complex--increased number of variables in shorter time frames--we can improve decision making quality by using an integral lens reducing the use of scarce resources and improving awareness, purpose, competence and well being in human being, having, doing and becoming--regardless of venue.

Dynamic Engagement

During 2004, I came up with the idea that complex dynamics SWIRL. In doing so, we can improve what is integral by contextualizing it within the nature of these dynamics. I also discovered that Integral Dynamics are most likely to occur at a specific memetic or valuing level--green or what Graves called FS. People seem to prefer Integral Dynamics at this level of integrating reality. (All levels differentiate and integrate reality in whatever way they can.)

At first I used the term SWIRL Dynamics, then I realized that term would be too jargony for most people and started using the concept of dynamic engagement which I've briefly begun to outline at www.dynamicengagement.com.

As a result of the emergence of dynamic engagement, I have been able to explain in much more detail how the integral lens is created and what's more--differentiated among a variety of paradigms, which I have outlined as:

Motivational Dynamics
Developmental Dynamics
Functional Dynamics
Instrumental Dynamics
Reciprocal Dynamics
Integral Dynamics
Differential Dynamics
Experiential Dynamics
Emergent Dynamics
Energy Dynamics

For those of you who follow stage theory, you'll notice that these dynamics are ordered in terms of their plasticity from bottom to top. Therefore energy dynamics are more plastic than motivational dynamics, which in my view, will come as a real surprise to blank slate dwellers.

In 2006, I completed the basic formulation of www.spiral-next.com and have now incorporated the entire model as it has emerged from the agents, tensions, rules, and conditionals of the work I started here. Spiral-NEXT contains some valuable work to help us apply directly the conceptual nature of the models I've synthesized in what I term a cross-paradigmatic approach. This is probably going to emerge into a field of it's own (a paradigm, as has integral dynamics), yet because it may be an emergent field arising out of the intersubjectivity of the dynamic paradigms I've identified, we may have the first ideas of how emergence becomes circular--or representative of the agent fields, their rules, tensions and the conditionals created.

What does that mean?

It means that because of our 'perceptive' limitations and lack of epistemological resolution, it may have already been there...we just didn't see it. Therefore it's not an emergence, it's a discovery. Not confusing the two would be essential if I were to model my own theory<G>.

If you interested in how this affects what is integral at any of those levels, please visit the website.

Let me summarize and clarify how to create an Integral map of reality.

Regardless of the problem or the solution, if one views it through an integral lens as provided in this discussion; when the opportunity is formulated to include as many worldviews as represented in terms of the vertical scale and complexity indicated by the problem/solution complexity or demands; in a sufficiently differentiated manner through an integrative process with the required horizontal scope and complexity; efficiency and effectiveness as an integral opportunity emerges.

Learn how to create an Integral Map using this system with an Integral Grid.

Subscribe to Mailing List