August 2012 Issue #1Where thinking deep doesn't have to hurt... too much!

Preamble

Hello again. I'm exploring in the liminal zone of in between, partiality, passion, inquiry and maybe something directly valuable to our life/work as counselors/ coaches/ therapists/mediators, etc. At the same time, I argue that if we place the lens of integral theory upon our work (loosely or otherwise) all those concepts and practices we hold dearly to standard (or clinical) counseling, coaching, therapy, mediation, etc. ought to go under considerable deconstruction and reconstruction, as that is essential to a postmodern practice, and integral theory is arguably an integration of postmodern practice with shades in early and mature levels of post-postmodern practice—with the transpersonal (and nondual) perspective enwrapping the entire scene. That's an integral mouthful of embrace. It also sets a rather spicy tone, if not aesthetic, for my overall agenda herein. I think that tone can be summarized nicely (but not completely) by the book that has been part of more than a few discussion groups in the last year that I've taken part in and/or facilitated: We've Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy--And the World's Getting Worse (James Hillman and Michael Ventura, New York: HarperCollins, 1993).

The journey in this NEWSLETTER series, with or without your direct input (no pressure intended), revolves around my search (at least) for a better understanding of what it means to be called to practice something labeled "integral counseling." I think we all have something to learn about that. At some point in our lives, we all became 'counselors' in the largest sense of the word, whether we chose to or not. Yet, let me define a particular focus for this NEWSLETTER series (although, it doesn't exclude other definitions or meanings of "counseling"). I will be directing attention to counseling = as the moment of a counselor and their client stepping into a space together to engage and enact an ethical mutually responsible outcome (often therapeutic and educational) that benefits the client. Of course, one can complicate this (e.g., how's counseling different from psychotherapy?) but that is satisfying for me right now. My conscious biased-interest is not on what is "clinical," although that certainly cannot be ignored or demeaned in integral counseling. It can be criticized.

1

What makes this relational-based co-encounter-event of counseling so fascinating is that we bring our philosophical and/or religious assumptions, theories, value sets, developmental lines, worldviews and politics and personal quirks and/or pathologies to the liminal (shadow) stage of performative counseling practice. Thus, one has to be analytically proficient in accessing and understanding, communicat-ing, and re-arranging all of that to approach the intent of something emancipatory (to some degree) that is of benefit to the client and society, if not the world and kosmos. It's a complicated practice of endless challenges, never a dull moment. Yes, some degree of understanding of integral theory and its vocabulary are useful to getting the most out of this NEWSLETTER series but that's up to you and not everyone who reads this may be into that.

So, these newsletters won't be traditional and all polished either, as the liminal allows inquiry into energies and initiatives coursing through one's veins that are more rough cut, a little blurry and fuzzy, yet, hopefully not gross and sloppy—you get the general picture and aesthetic. Two items in Issue #1 : (1) survey of "Integral Counseling" on the internet recently and, (2) responses (and my response back) to my recent one act play on integral counseling foundations (I sent to most of you).

p.s. I'll eventually set-up a whole website on this counseling direction I'm going-RMF

Quick Web search "Integral Counseling" - Aug. 19/12

R. Michael Fisher

[I was looking for what, who, and how they define "integral" and what they including in their version of "integral counseling"]

Integral Counseling Psychology MA (@ CIIS - California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, CA) one of five distinct masters degrees in counseling psychology at CIIS, it is E-W and the first transpersonal psychology graduate program in the world -- diverse schools of W. psychology are synthesized with world's spiritual traditions, all part of spiritual unfolding [8 faculty, 21 adjuncts, I've heard/read only one of them]

"Integral- essential to wholeness, involving all aspects of a person, the synthesis of different theories"

----Integral Counseling - Alexandra Hepburn, Ph.D., C.C. (is Program Developer & Coordinator of M.A. in Psychology & Spirituality in Integrative Studies in Psychology (at Antioch Univ., Seattle, WA). - her experiential tools (most for individual healing and development) - EMDR & Brainspotting, enneagram, bilateral hemisphere brain processing, EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) and specifically Thought Field Therapy including applied

2

kinesiology, transpersonal hypnotherapy, and "nondual therapy" (studied under American born E. teachers Gangaji & Adyashanti)

"The word 'integral' may be used in a number of different ways. In describing my practice as integral I am drawing on general meanings--integrating diverse points of view, oriented towards wholeness--as well as referring to an emerging perspective known as integral psychology" [all held in a nondual standpoint]

---- Integral Counseling Center at Church Street (one of the four CIIS centers in San Francisco) , San Francisco, CA [California Institute of Integral Studies]"Leading Therapy for Mind, Body and Spirit"

"Our therapists taken an integral approach to healing that recognizes the interrelationships among mind, body, and spirit." (and "honors the uniqueness of each individual")- draw from humanistic, transpersonal psychologies, Gestalt, narrative therapy, psychosynthesis, and dreamwork, brief therapy, Hakomi, existential counseling, cognitive therapy

-----

Jim Giorgi, Integral/Transpersonal Counseling & Life Coaching, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. [lots of Chinese, Buddhist imagery, he's an EEG Neurotherapist, EFT Practitioner, Educator, Martial Artist-black belt, Meditation Teacher, ordained Zen Buddhist Priest]

"Following the Bright Path Together" [mindfulness is mentioned on top]"Integral adj.: Whole; Complete; Unified; Possessing everything essential for completeness: A holistic view of human consciousness." [also defines "Transpersonal"]-----Integral Counseling Institute, "Utilizing integral concepts for self-transformation through: Personal and integrative therapy, attention mindfulness training" [Portland, OR] [4 counselors, I've not heard of]

----

Priya Thiele, Eugene Integral Counseling [Eugene, OR]

[uses a diagram from Wilber's book covers; a Tibetan Buddhist mandala] "Integral Counseling" "Integral means essential to wholeness" "As an integral counselor my aim is to facilitate and guide you through a process of self-exploration so you may actively participate in your own healing and personal growth." - "using techniques from complimentary modals of therapy"

-----

3

Some Integral Counseling Centers, or practitioners use the name very loosely, mostly as another term for integrative, they don't define "integral" explicitly, and they often say "includes body, mind, soul and Spirit" -- often call it "client-centered" some practitioners list 12+ types of training therapies they do-- these tend to be more all over the country, NC, VA, TN--

programs like Integral Counseling Initiative, College of Education, Univ. of N. Texas, focus on non-denominational spiritual integration in development and counseling practices: they state "The Integral perspective does not subscribe to or endorse any one spiritual or religious belief system but affirms any system that is freely chosen and life affirming"

----Alternative/complementary- all of the above "integral" initiatives are in this realm of the 'edge' of the counseling field; none are mainstream with the exception of the Univ. of N. Texas program being fairly straight (but they also don't seem to offer a degree that I could tell, it's more a project within the College of Education)- most are private businesses and/or private (not-for-profit) institutional affiliated

Rather thin - Although, at first glance, these programs and practitioners are stunningly intimidating in charismatic stature, class status, and imaginal impression, underneath, I am typically disappointed with websites like these which seem so thin, if not ungrounded in good integral philosophy. Or often they're so subjectively nuanced by a practitioner's personality and/or institutional stayed discourse that the essence of some core set of fundamentals about "integral" seems violated; but maybe I am being critical to the extreme. I ought not expect practitioners to be philosophers or theorists, right? Or should we expect they are, to some degree? I'll admit that these are just advertising websites often, and not technical articles in journals I was examining (which is another topic for another newsletter). I've added Appendix 1 to the end of this newsletter of what I call 12 Concerns for an Integral Analytics or what I see typically (not always) missing in talk of "integral" counseling, therapy, coaching, mediation, etc.

My critical point of analysis: Where are uniquely co-arising approaches to integral counseling from within integral theory itself? Where are uniquely brilliant creative interventions (ideas) integrally-inspired by vision-logic? I don't see that.

The approaches and people listed above all present as alternative/complimentary counselors/therapists/coaches, and use an eclectic array of psychospiritual approaches (techniques) and place them all under the umbrella of the newest cultural (N.A.) trope "integral" because it is holistic and integrative, a workhorse for "unity in diversity," but "integral" is not so worn-out perhaps as holistic and there's an integral sub-cultural movement (including "Integral Culture" as the cultural creative folks have suggested) and they want to tap into that 'edge' market and spirit.

4

So, is that a problem? Is there something missing in how integral counseling remains restrictively, unimaginatively, within the notion of integral psychology (and often transpersonal psychology and/or clinical-type discourses1) and Eastern Buddhism, and the W. Coast of America? Does integral theory need to be reduced to integral psychology to shape integral counseling practices? The notion of "therapy" and "therapia" (a la Wilber)2 are at some tension in this last question-- and that's where things get interesting, I think....

A more obvious problem is how they define and construct the meaning of (or don't define and make meaning of) "integral." I find it all very 'fluffy' and thin to say the least. Something I have long battled with in the holistic, human potential and new age psychologies/healing/therapy movements since the 1980s. I sense a lot of it all is "old wine in new skins" and the skeptic in me is not totally happy the "old" is appropriating (diluting) a truly new radical philosophy/theory called "integral theory." Of course, websites are marketing tools.

I am biased toward mostly (not entirely) Wilberian (early, pre-1997) integral thought. I am not a disciple of Wilber's but a respectful critic. I am not convinced any of these some 15 or so practitioners, I looked at online as they showed up in order (albeit, very limited on my part), really understand deeply the implications of integral thinking. What they call an "integral approach" seems to be valued over critical integral thinking in general. It disturbs me because I see an epistemic violence in that watering down, not only of Wilber's work (if they even use it, not that they necessarily should) but of the Kosmos and the required the basics of therapia (in the Wilberian sense) that accompanies it. I dare say, this is nothing new of course, market-imperative pragmatism (Americanism) is eating away at "integral" in all this. Yes, I'm hypothesizing, as a born-raised "Canadian," there's some important critical perspective I have on what is over-saturating (and skewing) the entire Integral Movement from within the USA (W. coast, California, San Francisco, Colorado).

1 I am currently developing a Professional Graduate Seminar online (12 wk) course that addresses when "clinical thinking" and "integral thinker" move into a reversal flow patterning and for most people trained in the helping professions with a clinical (medical) root discourse hegemony and "regime of truth," there is a problem of what I call "clinical determinism" afoot that prevents most integral practitioners in the health fields from progressing into the higher mastery levels of integral applications. Stay-tuned if this course might interest you. It will be sponsored by my Department of Integral & 'Fear' Studies, at the Center for Spiritual Inquiry and Integral Education (http://csiie.org).2 "... each discovery of a new and deeper context [subjective becomes objective in development] and meaning is a discovery of a new therapia, a new therapy, namely: we must shift our perspectives, deepen our perception, often against a great deal of resistance [e.g., Wilber's concept of Thanatos = 'fear' and cultural v-memes/worldviews as cultural 'norms'], to embrace the deeper and wider context.... [for the self-system it is a] death to a shallow context and rebirth to a deeper one" (Wilber, 1995, p. 73). Not only psychology = therapia but philosophy, theology, sociology, politics, spirituality are all part of the requirement both of the discovery and the working through the resistances of the discovery of the deeper and wider "freedom" pursuit, that can be called emancipation, liberation, revolution, enlightenment. All of which I call the path of fearlessness = from a paradigm of fear to Love; from aduality to duality to nonduality.

5

So, is that a problem?

Ah, yeah, I'm stuck in a desire to call myself an "Integral Counselor" and offer that to the world, both for practitioners and clients, but what is it that I am to "offer" that will actually be useful and take (in terms of interest and income) in-the-real-world?

So, is that a problem?

*****

Your Responses (and mine in return) to my one-act play: Average Male Client Meets Average Male Therapist on Common Ground. -RMF

Background Context : This play, not intended for the arts/entertainment world but heuristic purposes, was initiated as an art-based form to flush out a spontaneous idea that came to me recently while making a salad. Intuition told me to "do something with this" as I sensed it is barely scratching a surface of something about integral theory and counseling practice and it is a 'gold mine' potentially. As one colleague wrote after reading my "play": "I get the sense this is the base for something even bigger...". We'll see.

I sent this "play" out to 13 folks in the US and Canada I know (more or less): x-clergy, social workers, mediators, counselors, psychologists, therapists, coaches, and one philosopher (all with some knowledge of "integral theory" and most who are very versed and interested in it and applying it more or less) and one who forefronts the term "integral" to identify their practices. None of us, to my knowledge is a totally "sold" on integral theory (e.g., Ken Wilber as one of its major contemporary thinkers). We're all quite critical. 7 folks (55+%) responded (short, med., and one long) on personal emails to me. -Thnx.

To Begin: (you might want to re-read the piece "Average Male Client Meets...." again; ask me and I'll send it again on email if you need; I've corrected errors)

"Thanks, Michael, a nice little play."

"Thanks for sending me your '2 great ideas'... After the second reading I got it!

"Michael, perhaps you should go to New York City and write one-act plays. Given the unpredictable flips in [your] plot, that would be Off-Broadway." [humor intended]

"Thanks for sharing this. It is an interesting technique isn't it. I think Robert Kegan would love it.... I have said to my clients at times 'What if you are both right?' It feels very integral to me."

6

"I really like it!!.... I can see myself in both of those characters. To me this play hits the sweet spot of what it is like to be male in a postmodern world. My only query would be, what makes this integral to you? And I take being integral light here—I don't think anyone [practitioner] needs to use the ["integral"] term or attempt to be integral. That's not where I am at these days."

That's a quick sample of a few colleagues to start. I'll attempt to find a few interesting voices to bring forward in my responses here. I'm also looking for some themes to trigger me to share more what was behind this little play (oh, so innocent, but not)... sorry, if I miss someone's comments and spirit of intent here, as I cannot give attention here to all of what is in your responses, and I will likely come back to these later and do another piece... who knows... (feel free to send me your responses to my responses as well)... building this 'data' as we go... co-inquiring as to what the foundations of integral counseling could (and/or ought) to look like (if there are any 'foundations') in this applied practice of what is known as "counseling."

To Dive-in :

Note: my focus for pursuing integral counseling theory and practice (and praxis) is couples work, and a notion of what I'll call coupleship; not sure why, but I think talking recently to Ken Markley (my social work/mediator buddy) triggered this narrowing down to get me started. The one-act play is all about intimate couple's counseling as it seems the notion of "couple" is about "two-ness" attempting to be united somehow and yet not fully, and it all reminds me analogously, upon reflection, of the holon (whole/part) unit that Wilber and others are playing with as the fundamental "unit" of analysis for integral work; the couple is, at least, for me, the obvious place/location/arrangement/event of a structural relationality that is prolific (desired) and contentious as hell in our society, and that's a good place to look at "conflict" and how well we handle it; and counseling/therapy/growth and development seems to be all about conflictwork, as I like to say, at least at its root of symptomatic/problematic arisings-- couples have "conflict" of some sort... and often, intimate couples present (in part) as some sort of "opposites" attracting--- and does the world need to better learn how to deal with dichotomies, opposites, differences as most every postmodern writer addresses this problem.

Both Right theme: "Michael, I liked this, seems to really bring out the inter-subjective integral counseling mode. Love the 'your partner is right half the time' insight... I get the sense this is the base for something even bigger... I love the humor... an aliveness to it." and another said, "Each gets to be right about what is important to them! It takes the right/wrong argument out of the interaction, yes?" and another "I have said to clients "What if you are both right?" It feels very integral to me" and another "Enjoyable and insightful, when both of us believe both of us are 1/2 right all the time, then we are living the research [theory as practitioners]...". and another "I am with you that we each need to allow a certain grace into our relationships, especially when we disagree, and we can start by acknowledging the validity of each other's perspective [and avoid the other position of a win-lose scenario]"; and another

7

summarized with their own take of a first principle: "the only question we need to answer in our couple is, 'Are You There For Me'?" and it is that 'being there' that would need to be unpacked.

Great Idea 1-

Yes. That theme of both being right 1/2 the time in a coupleship is the first 'great idea' (an intervention directive) as I playfully elaborated on through the therapist's role. I didn't go into how the client might take that directive.

What kind of directive is it? Simplifying developmentally and evolutionarily, I see 'great idea 1' as the essential philosophical and political step, with its accompanying emotional and psychological tolerance expansion of self-to-Other, accomplishing the early challenge of postmodern pluralism (Green= we all have equal and valid perspectives on the larger reality), after one has presumably accomplished/integrated the developmental challenge of modern individualism (Orange= we all are equal). So, yes, this great idea for couples is about building the developmental platform essential to grow to 2nd-tier integral stage—as prior work before integralism (Yellow= autonomous). I assume all of these accomplishments are forms of conflict management and resolution (more or less). Theoretically, the further along the Wilberian spectrum of consciousness, if fully-integrated (AQAL wise), then individuals/groups will theoretically manage conflict between people (and other things) better (i.e., with less dichotomous othering, division, fear, trauma, hatred, violence). Thus, it is an emancipatory spectrum developmental/ evolution-ary concept, foundational to all integral theory, that I know of.

Spiral Dynamics integral theory (with empirical test-data on values/worldviews) shows that only 30-32% of the world's population3 is capable to "get" 'great idea 1' (on average) at this time in world history; and, more than likely, as Robert Kegan would argue, they'd have to be in the age group of 25-50 to "get" 'great idea 1' as well;4 but of course things are always evolving and regressing up and down rather fluidly, often unpredictably. With this general integral knowledge/theory, it is a worthy generalization (reality) that 'great idea 1' will only work with less than 1/3 of our clients. I raise this because I wondered if you or I thought, when we read my play, this problematic was embedded in the effectiveness of the directive. And what kind of client-base reality we are dealing with to apply this directive. Of course, it is

3 I'm using Wilber-Beck estimates of world population in Orange (modernism), Green (postmodernism) and Yellow/Turquoise (post-postmodernism), and not including the controversy over what stage accomplished level of development most "cultural creatives" are at, as Wilber has critiqued the Ray & Anderson claims of "integral" for their samples; he believes they have inflated it and thus inflated the 50 million operating at this (Green-Yellow) level. Complex argument.4 For Kegan, the transformation from Third Order Consciousness to Fourth Order Consciousness is most common in the 25-50 year old range when people are most likely to be non-conformist enough to the cultural and traditions they are brought up in and have enough solid self-structure to transform to what he calls "self-authoring" (largely a postmodern self). Excerpted from an interview of Robert Kegan by Elizabeth Debold "Epistemology, Fourth Order Consciousness, and the Subject-Object Relationship" in What is Enlightenment? Fall-Winter, 2002.

8

possible (no data on this, I know of), that people who choose counseling are already in the Orange-Green zone anyways so maybe 'great idea 1' would work with most all of our clients(?) But the question is, "what is working"?

From my analysis, there is nothing "integral" per se in the "both 1/2 right" directive nor in most of the responses some of you have made above in regard to this theme. Which is fine. It is a directive of Green pluralism in a particular form. Granted I put a bit of a twist on it to up-grade the challenge to people who come across as already pluralistic (Green) satisfied. Green pluralism as a worldview/worldspace can (at least to some degree) imagine a world where everyone in a couple relationship is 1/2 right; you are right, and I am right (we celebrate multiple different perspectives, unity-in-diversity, we celebrate both/and, we celebrate win-win for all conflicts under the pull of divisiveness in dichotomies and oppositions); we celebrate in the Green discourse the victory of postmodernity itself, in a nutshell (heralded as "multiculturalism" is one form of it in Green politics, as well). Both partners are obviously partially right from only each unique perspective. Both partners carry half the rightness/truth in a coupleship. This is Orange-Green accomplishment evolutionarily, when it comes to negotiating difference. As great as that is, I'll argue it is not enough for the integral counselor to "settle" there. Hint: Green hates to admit it is 1/2 right, with the concomitant logic that it is also 1/2 wrong in the coupleship, as the therapist in the play invokes as a principle of 'great idea 1' and points to in 'great idea 2.'

My focus in the play is to work ("test") the stability/integration/maturity of Green capacity in the client(s) and coupleship's worldspace. For the integral counselor it is crucial information, like an assessment, to see how and where there are resistances to it (or not). So, does the client, for example, when they hear the directive from their counselor for 'great idea 1' go along with it?, get excited about it as a 'new freedom' from the conflict in their coupleship? Not that I think conflict is bad, when not handled well it tears relationships apart, nothing else does that if you really think about when Love becomes fear, it is because of conflict (i.e., our conflict manage-ment capacities and our differences of values, worldviews, etc.). Integral is the solution (theoretically), to couples' problems.

There could be ten thousands nuanced client-responses to that first directive by the therapist in the play, and that's the integral counselor's task to pick up on them, and elaborate them, and work them into the session(s). Of course, having the other partner in the coupleship there adds a great strength to the data of where this couple is at with their Orange-Green structure (worldview) and potential transitioning to integral, or if they even have that base-platform, either as individuals5 and/or as a couple. I would recommend asking them about how they

5 Note, integral psychotherapy literature now has strong recommendations to assess at least the "self-identity" line of development of a client at the beginning (e.g., Cook-Greuter's tests of vertical altitude). With Orange we are talking Stage 4 "Rational-Self-Authorizing" capacity, and 4/5 transition we are talking about "Relativistic-Sensitive" for Green's emergence and so on to 5 and 5/6 (Integral) and 6 (post-Integral).

9

respond to 'great idea 1' individually first, without the other partner there; once you have read both of them around it individually, then in a later session bring it up when they are in the counseling room together to see how they both handle it.

So, yes, the ultimate goal here (theoretically) is to ground/build the healthy Green pluralism as "inter-subjective" work (as one colleague wrote); both partners with your assistance, are working here potentially with this directive to enter co-inquiry—and co-creation (as much as possible) of some platform called "both 1/2 right" all the time (albeit, very early stages, and likely only cognitive if successful at first) for an integral worldspace6 in their relationship, and (equally important) with you as their integral counselor. I know not all integral counselors, or theorists, might agree with my position. I'm going on intuition and my knowledge and experience. I am also a "deep" integral practitioner, going for Yellow-Integral in the coupleship imaginary, that is, if the couple (or an individual in the couple) is looking to me like they could be ready and they respect me enough to make it a salient directive of motivation and striving for them--while, realizing environmental, logistical and health conditions can change in all four quadrants at any time, and the Green and/or nascent Yellow (if that's the case) with a particular counseling situation (case) is fragile7 at best— and resistance and regressions (if not exacerbated arising pathologies) are going to be expected when people's systems are stretched forward into an expansion beyond the earlier first-tier more fear-based formations/ platforms (as good education, counseling, therapy does stretch clients/learners). Crossing from tier-1 (say Green) to tier-2 (Yellow) (as SDi theory suggests) is formidable (a la Claire Grave's research, and my experiences as well).

The directive for postmodern advanced pluralism to post-postmodern integral pluralism, I think can be captured nicely in "both 1/2 right" all the time. I know that was a radical thing for me to admit in the last few years, and it may have something also to do with male-gender conditioning (that's why I added gender in the title of the play). I'm guessing males (men) in our W. society (or in any patriarchy) would really struggled with this directive, more than women who are more naturally relational, to generalize. My partner (Barbara) agree with this suggestion. But that's another path of exploration. I'm attempting to keep this simple for teaching

6 A more complex discussion is the interrelationship of worldview and worldspace (a la Wilber). I like Wilber's notion of worldspace related to stages of development as it is a container of the imaginary of an individual/group at that worldview (i.e., set of hierarchical values). I think counselors can be quite effective on expanding the imaginary of the next higher worldspace, without having to go through all the integrations of body/emotions/mind etc. between two stages. 7 I have been working with a concept of "pluralistic fragilisation" based on Bracha Ettinger's post-Lacanian (feminine matrixial) relational psychodynamics of the prenatal template of mother-child bond (and variants of attachment theory), as combinations of theoretical ground for explaining the fragile (and necessary) conditions under which pluralism emerges in the first place and why it so easily regresses or seems to dissolve under pressure/distress in counselors and clients. This notion of pluralistic fragilisation is also directly related to clinicial determinism mentioned in an earlier footnote. As well, my current theorizing of reversals phenomenon on the ontological and axiological dimensions of existence (e.g., Love vs. Fear) is poignant to notions of fearlessness. This complex discussion is critical, but not here.

10

purposes here. It was confirming that one counselor who works with men as an area of expertise responded with: "this play hits the sweet spot of what it is like to be male in the postmodern world" and he was referring to himself as a husband, professional and what his clients are somewhat going through.

Subtle twist in Green- I know Green is going to innately interpret my play and its 'great idea 1'-- and, often, it is not going to quite get it right. As one colleague asked: "It takes the right/wrong argument out of the interaction, yes?" Well, my answer to that question is, yes, and no. Notice in the play on p. 3 when the therapist delivers the idea, the client's response is: "[stunned and habitual-like] What? I mean Green will interpret not only with an expected partiality but with a distortive (fear-based) twist—both parties of the coupleship can be right (from either/or to both/and logic; dialectic even), meaning 1/2 right all the time. It is subtle linguistics and discourse shifting here, to see what I am getting at in the play with the words "that they agree in principle that their partner is 'right' on all things 1/2 the time" —an integral perspective on that, as I intended it to come across (or not), was this principle states in other words: when I am in conflict (arguing) with my partner, she could be right and I am wrong OR I could be right and she is wrong; we both agree to that possibility and principle. This intervention undermines competitiveness, as Green attempts to do on the surface appearance as well with its sensitive call for "peace" and "equality" and embrace of "unity-in-diversity" slogans. But Green has a nasty shadow of exclusion of any perspective that isn't Green, and sees such perspectives (worldviews) as violent relative to its own. It doesn't like "right/wrong" judgment period, yet it is contradictory in its own judgment (Wilber and Beck have elaborated that argument ad in finitum in their integral-based critiques of Green).

Of course, I didn't come up with this principle from nowhere, it actually is pretty accurate to the conflicts I have with my partner (21 years intimate 24/7 lived relationship). Note, how different this "difference" is compared to Green's interpretation. It is worth studying if it is not obvious. It is tricky. Green pluralism, postmodernism (relativism, in the extreme) erases "right" and "wrong" from reality, because we all have different perspectives. I'll come back to elaborate the Yellow-integral pluralism positioning as I read integral theory and its challenge to Green pluralism in terms of a relationship to difference and in intimacy of inter-subjective committed relationships. There are crucial distinctions here to make and 'great idea 2' will direct this part of the inquiry beyond Green pluralism.

Great Idea 2- is the last line of the play; (a) Pointing Instructions: Yet, post-postmodern integral pluralism is a radical jump across the abyss from first-tier (Green) to second-tier (Yellow) worldviews and worldspaces. This is a complic-ated topic, and I'm being short on purpose to wrap-up. Let me start with one colleague's comment (a mediator) on "the technique" of the play and a colleague's comment (the postmodern-nondual philosopher) who responded with a particular poignant insight I respect, as it points to the core of the play's deeper 2nd-3rd-tier message/imaginary (at least, it's a beginning opening of the really grand challenge

11

for Green-transitioning and readiness for more evolutionary advance of consciousness in the integral and inter-subjective quadrants of relationship/coupleship):

"It is an interesting technique isn't is. I think Robert Kegan would love it. It seems to foster a sudden transformation of consciousness from the subjective to the objective. A standard technique in mediation, as you probably know, is 'mirroring.' I ask the wife [for e.g.,] to tell her story and ask the husband to make notes and say nothing. Then I ask the husband to summarize the wife's story. Then I ask the wife if the husband got it right and then do the same procedure with the other spouse. I think it would be very interesting to try your technique." Kegan's model is based on stage-development of the self-Other relationality based on a repetitive in-built structural pattern of one's "self" being embedded as totally subjective (often unconscious) to "one's self" and then at some point one is capable to 'jump out' reflectively from that embeddedness (even if momentarily) to another more objective reference point of perspective that's more embracing of more reality and experience (e.g., the partner's recording and interpretation of "story" of the other partner; from the above mirroring technique is a move from "I"- perspective to "We"-perspective via inter-subjectivity). All counselors use this, more or less, with themselves (at least) acting as that physical "objective" referent. What Kegan's powerful research shows is that change becomes a "transformation" when they jump a level/stage in referent point of perspective, the pattern from subjective to objective, but then, as is inevitable in growth and development the new objective pattern eventually gets absorbed in the self-system and is forgotten so to speak to the point of where the "self" has now embedded in a new subjective (once objective view)... on and on, the cycle repeats, as the data shows. All of this developmental nuance (to some "illusion"), arguably, is overcome in one-shot if one transcends the whole messy ladder of creation and just becomes one with nothingness (i.e., a nondual referent where subject/object completely dissolves as in Zen).

The postmodern-nondual philosopher colleague nailed it: "The end [of your play] being half right about the most important thing is the vital theme, yet it is the end when it should be the start...". Indeed so true; it is the start of the hard integral work on the horizon to the next developmental transformation. The therapist in the play was both joking and jolting the hard-earned (and more familiar postmodern) prize of Green pluralism in this one statement and really a confession, which I think is true for most people if they were to accept the principle of 'great idea 1.' This colleague asks as well wrote: "Is this naive self-knowledge or reflective self-irony or simply a joke about the first principle? The reader has to guess...".

Another colleague summarized nicely the Green accomplishment of pluralism (for resolving conflict) in his response: "Better [than win-lose competition for perspectives in a couple] is to start the perspective that we each have a valid point of view. And we each have a partial point of view. If you and I have differing points of view we are looking at things differently." Now, if we look at Wilber's "new type of critical theory" (his own words), if we accept that pluralistic stance of each valid,

12

each partial, which integral perspective does, then we have to go the next half of the theory and not just end there; Wilber completes his definition of integral and integral theory, he wrote: "The integral paradigm will inherently be critical of those approaches [perspectives] that are, by comparison [with the integral one] partial, narrow, shallow, less encompassing, less integrative."8

This postmodern-nondual colleague continues to penetrate the end of the play as the beginning as irony and a pointing direction to the transcendence of the "truth" of the first principle which starts to now look rather humorously pale and illusory in light of the 'truth' of the more difficult 'great idea 2;: "I am guessing it to be self-irony, and irony about therapy [itself]." Probably true, as it is an integral theory critique of Green therapies. He continues to elaborate: "After all the analysis and attempts to accept the viewpoint of the other [beyond right/wrong], I still feel [says the therapist in the play] my view is more important. So therapy is existential absurdity...". Perhaps, some therapy is absurdity, and arguably, therapy in the first-tier, even in some existential therapy. Yet, the tension and distinction made here is to point to "therapies" (and the integral therapia) beyond those, which integrates some of there necessary developmental sensitivities to client-needs but ultimately what the integral counselor helps strap-up in the first-tier, they rip down in the second-tier counseling work. Welcome to a truly post-postmodern work. Not everybody's cup of tea? Is that a problem?

I was letting the therapist in the play deconstruct his own boot-strapping and principles in an implicit critical integral theory, without forcing anything on the client. For sure, he was informing the client of the potential for the deconstruction if and when the client might self-identify with the first principle ('great idea 1'). He also said, 'great idea 2' "comes later, after a lot of relationship practice, and sometimes therapy too" (p. 4). Yet, arguably, a particular client/couple could just jump in and start the therapy at 'great idea 2.' The integral counselor could have added that "spiritual practice" and philosophical reflection could also be useful. The self-reflectivity (honesty) of the therapist disclosed at the end of the play the real core integral work had not yet been addressed in principle one, even if it was accepted and practiced by the couple. That's what I think is critical to this whole piece, it reveals the foundation-building for a full-readiness to do integral work.

What's the integral work being pointed to? It's in Wilber's critical integral theory defined above. Any one person in the coupleship is still likely going to hold on to self-Other relationality that is hierarchical in its values and worldview, that is if we adopt the integral theory of development and evolution of consciousness through stages that cannot be skipped (so the theory says), without pathological consequences. The therapist in the play is saying now he and his wife are going to have to go through the conflict about the therapist claiming his 1/2 rightness is more important than hers. Critical integral theory says, that's quite possible, it is,

8 Cited in Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala, p. 2.

13

when you look beyond the "he" and "she" level of the pluralistic embrace. That's the key point. Integral, in practice, is asking us to look at the "whole" (whole/part) holonic system and indeed, arguably, either "he" or "she" could hold more important truth in their 1/2 rightness than the other, in any particular situation and/or overall depending on the relationship's development as an "it" (3rd-person perspective called "coupleship") and depending on the aims of the couple for the intimate partnership.

The integal challenge is to get out of thinking in "your view" and "my view" as more important, without throwing out the baby with the bath—in other words, keeping "more important" as a possibility for the coupleship to negotiate with and acknowledge as best (honestly, egolessly) as they can, from time to time. The challenge for integralists and those attempting to try out integral notions in practice, in coupleship, is to not let "more important" become personal, gendered, at least, not entirely. This is very difficult believe you me, as my partner and I have fought around this and I don't know how much progress has really been made; frankly, we are still mostly working on nascent principle 'great idea 1.' And that's challenging enough to put in practice.

This better-than "more important" is the hard bitter pill which Green does not want to take—and the first-tier and second-tier battle is underway with counselors and their views of what it means to say they are informed by "integral" in their work. I see this tension and conflict in the responses of several of the responders to the play. As one colleague suggested "the only question we need to answer in our couple is, 'Are You There For Me'?" Integral theory would embrace that as healthy Green, with emphasis still on "you" (2nd-person perspective) and "me" (1st-person), yet the 3rd-person perspective (and Wilber says there are 8 or more person-perspectives to explore), nor the "more important" hierarchical aspects of evolution of coupleship itself are not highlighted and given integral-due worldspace of co-inquiry in such a comment.

Yellow integral perspective and theory accepts the full hierarchy of the Spiral of consciousness (Spirit) or whatever you want to call it. Some of us tap that more consistently than others, some of us are more developed than others (at center of gravity). Yet, that doesn't mean, that 50:50 rightness and wrongness is erased. I have no doubt my partner is more right about fundamental aspects of reality than I, and I am more right about significance aspects of reality (i.e., the Kosmos) than she. Wilber's integral theory makes this distinction of fundamental (lower rungs) and significance (higher rungs), and how we need to respectfully integrate them both, because if the fundamental level is skewed or missed, or denied, it can bring down the whole Spiral and the higher significance (consciousness, even nondual) will collapse like a house of cards and devolution is always a present reality (so says integral theory). If the significance is lost in pragmatic fundamental "rights" then a relationship can go into immense retreat and succeed at not growing. I really think that totally makes sense. So, Yellow Integral has to deal with this potential of arrogance all the time, yet, not fall prey to the regime of hegemonic control that

14

Green (Thanatos shadow) wants to put on "anything higher" than itself (i.e., its postmodern pluralism and accomplishment of acknowledging and validating "different" perspectives on a flatland ontology; Wilber's argument and I agree "flatland" is deadly to quality development and depth).

I trust, in part, this generalizing analysis (integrally-informed as I can make it in the moment), answers questions from the responders like: "... what makes this [play] integral to you?" or "How do you see it as resulting in the couple not needing anymore therapy?" One can say "It feels very integral to me" as a counselor or client, and that's fine for what it is. It merely isn't rigorous enough, or deep enough, to my way of thinking and the concerns (Appendix 1) I have about integral analytics. What motivation is there to learn more about "integral" if one is satisfied with their felt experience and opinions only?

Deciding on criteria (standards) for integral practice or what constitutes an integral lens or theory is part of what the Integral Movement is working on, explicitly or implicitly, and mostly not cooperatively I may add (irony of integral itself). I am explicit about this. I think it is important for qualitative control of what we do as counselors calling ourselves "integral" or not calling ourselves that and studying integral but keeping it out of the foreground. It doesn't matter your strategy of use of the "word" but your commitment to what integral theory (and the collective community) sees as important about it. This requires good research and arguments, and conflict amongst ourselves, within a spirit of cooperative co-inquiry into the making of meaningful and powerful integral interventions and ethical standards. But I don't want to get into all that here, go to my Department of Integral and 'Fear' Studies for that agenda in detail (http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3).

I'm merely saying, the integral perspective itself doesn't allow only a "my opinion" about "integral" (it has to be at least 4 quadrant co-arising, and multiperspectival, and aperspectival without falling into relativistic pluralism which is "you believe what you want and feel and I'll believe what I want and feel" end of story—there's no critical praxis across the "It" "We" and "I"-- arguably, there's no integral knowledge created in that Green pluralism activity). If counselors are also teachers/educators, then they have to ask seriously what their stance is as they share it with their learners. And teaching others about "integral" without a larger context than "my opinion" is really not very good education and I'd prefer people who have that attitude to not teach anyone please. I've spent most of my adult life (40+ yrs) studying critical education, so I have a pet-peeve about quality in educational (and therapeutic) processes and ethical responsibility of teachers.

Oh, I believe no one has to "do therapy" (traditionally) to pass from first-tier to second-tier healthily and integrated; but, I'm an idealist-integralist. And sure, some therapy is likely good as part of the journey, but the question is, what kind?

To sign-off (a postmodern meditation and image):

15

The power of ideals is incalculable.... The most valuable knowledge we can have is how to deal with disappointments. -Albert Schweitzer

A big part of me is an idealist (small 'i') and the other a "realist" who knows disappointment inside out and backwards. I also am a nondualist at-heart but an amateur one, it is the integral-nondual combination that strikes me as incredibly useful in integral analytics to which this newsletter is dedicated.

The idealist part of me loves the idea of counseling probably more than doing counseling, at this point in my life and that's nothing to feel embarrassed about. I have still lots of passion to doing counseling too but I also would like to be a trainer and educator of counselors. My initiatives to get a viable counseling/consulting practice underway, once again, will bring home to me what is real in the meshes of my contentious journey with the quotidian (paying the bills) of the 20-21st century. The aboriginal art piece below (by artist Abie Kamerre, 2004) fascinated me and I did my own photoshop manipulation to emphasize what I think this quote by philosopher Gilles Deleuze speaks to:

"... the visible has its own way of being read... and the legible has its own kind of theater.... and we are always being led back to a new correspondence or mutual expression, 'inter-expression,' 'fold following fold.'9

APPENDIX 112 CONCERNS FOR AN INTEGRAL ANALYTICS

The following (without description given, at this point) are my concerns that have arisen in studying "integral counseling" as a concept and practice. This list are concepts (mainly from Wilber et al.) that I think are pretty fundamental to an

9 Cited in Lambert, G. (2002). The non-philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. New York: Continuum, p. 48.

16

integral analytics, and an integral analytics is foundational to any practice called or associated with the term "integral" as far as I am concerned.

1. quadrant co-arising (tetra-arising), quadrivium analysis and holon dynamics

2. co-inquiry (critical integral praxis)

3. "in over our heads" (cognitive dissonance/overload) and developmental sensitivity and thus resistance to learning difficult knowledge is critical to analyze

4. spiritual by-passing and 2nd-3rd tier pathologies

5. meta-theory (meta-psychology) and how it transforms the very nature, meaning and definition of psychology and its practices

6. ontological flatland (ECO vs. EGO camp), boomeritis, and loss of depth/quality in the kosmos

7. critical theory (post-Habermasian) and liberation theory = integral theory (Wilberian, pre-1997)

8. existential-integral commitments (Fearlessness line, FMS-7 at Integral Yellow/Teal) & Turquoise (i.e., two categories developmentally for "integral" early and late phases

9. Integral Life Practice and its role, upside an downside

10. eight (plus) person perspectives (integral methodological pluralism) and kosmic address-- the shift from pluralism to integral pluralism (and vision-logic) and nondual perspective (i.e., nondual integralism)

11. why Wilber stepped-down from transpersonal psychology to integral psychology; issue of the "shadow" in transpersonal discourses

12. role of LOVE and FEAR - somatocentric to kosmocentric, micro, meso, macro [related to 6. and 8.]

*****

17