Integral Pluralism and PatternDynamics™

Integral Pluralism and PatternDynamics™

By Tim Winton

I’ve just had an initial read of Sean Esbjörn-Hargens’s (2010) most recent article, “An Ontology of Climate Change”, due out in the next (Spring 2010) edition of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. I say initial read because I’m going to have to go over this more than a few times to take it all in. My blog post here is largely the process of unpacking Sean’s article, coming to terms with its implications for the field of Integral Theory and Praxis, and working through the relationship of my own work in Integral Theory and Integral Sustainability to the emergent space he has opened up.

 There are some big theoretical moves enacted in this article- not the least of which is to bring the idea of “enactment” itself front and centre in integral discourse. To enact enactment, as it were. Sean also makes explicit, the hereto only weakly implied idea of Integral Ontological Pluralism (IOP) and connects it to the only slightly more strongly implied concept on Integral Epistemological Pluralism (IEP) through the only fully explicit pluralism currently widely articulated in Integral Theory, Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). This is the familiar—at least to Integral Ecology geeks like me—who (epistemology) is enacting, how (methodology) are they enacting, and what (ontology) are they enacting format from Sean and Michael Zimmerman’s (2009) recent book, “Integral Ecology”.

 

Integral Pluralism

Sean introduces this triad of pluralisms as explicitly included in “Integral Pluralism”, and with that signifier brings forth a meta-perspective on Integral itself. This is big move number one: in fact this is huge and, I think, hugely exciting— not just for its chutzpah (and I mean that in a most integral sense of the word)—but also for its practical usefulness in meeting the challenges of a complex world. Sean illustrates this through a chart showing how Integral Pluralism allows us to identify the multiple (but overlapping) objects called “climate change”.

Ontological pluralism brings to awareness the fact that when we are talking about climate change, we are not all of us talking about the same thing, even if we are not entirely talking about different things. That’s the “overlapping” bit- not just one thing, but not so many or so completely unrelated to an underlying “reality” that they are completely fragmented. I should say here that Sean does not limit Integral Pluralism to the above-mentioned three pluralisms, and this opens up a host of other possibilities for inclusion within the purview of an Integral meta-perspective. For instance, by the end of the article Sean has added Integral Theoretical Pluralism to the mix.

Now, along with multiple perspectives and multiple methodologies we recognize multiple ontologies, allowing us to multiply Integral comprehensiveness and inclusion by some number of factors. And, through that increased comprehensiveness, enact a more sophisticated view and response to the challenges we face. Sean uses some illuminating graphics to demonstrate Modern, Postmodern and Integral approaches to ontology that I found particularly interesting- especially in their relationship to my own graphically intense Integral offering called PatternDynamics™. (See Appendix 1) Before we get to that though, we need to check out big move number two, Integral Enactment Theory.

 

Integral Enactment Theory

In Sean’s words, “Integral Pluralism specifically includes: Integral Epistemological Pluralism (IEP), Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP), and Integral Ontological Pluralism (IOP). Integra Pluralism forms the basis of what I am calling Integral Enactment Theory.” (Esbjörn-Hargens 2010, pp. 146) A little later on he adds: “Integral Theory emphasizes the role played by methodology (the How) in linking and integrating ontology and epistemology through the enactment, constitution, or performance of the phenomenon being investigated.” (Esbjörn-Hargens 2010, pp. 149) The last quote I’ll mention, and the one that really brought forth for me what it means to be engaged in an enactive paradigm, is one Sean includes from Ken Wilber: “… you must also be able to specify the Kosmic address of the perceiver, and that implies being able to specify what injunctions (paradigms, exemplars, enactions) a perceiving subject must perform in order to be at a Kosmic address that CAN perceive the object.” (Wilber 2006, p. 267)

Integral Enactment Theory for me, as I’m unpacking it now (and I’d like to make it clear that I’m really thinking aloud here to generate a conversation that can help me understand this more fully), has a few critical dimensions.

Firstly, ontology is brought back into focus. Modern “naïve” realism (a single pre-given object “out there”), which has been discredited by Post Modern critiques and thus left ontology somewhat absent from the dominant theoretical discourse, is replaced with a more sophisticated or “critical” ontology. A critical ontology, as I would characterize it, does not accept the pre-given object, but neither does it reject “real” material reality. It simply qualifies any “real” object as enacted, multiperspectival, and multifaceted.

Secondly, Integral Enactment Theory, illuminates “performance” and “process”- it is the act that matters in enactment.

Thirdly, Integral Enactment Theory discloses a double hermeneutic at work in Integral Theory. A double hermeneutic implies that enactment is a two way street- subjects not only disclose objects (single hermeneutic), subjects can influence the object enacted (double hermeneutic).

 

Integral Diagrams

Figure 1 below, from Sean’s paper, illustrates the power of a relatively simple diagram to illustrate the rather more complex discussion of his ideas. Note the arrows pointing both ways indicating the double hermeneutic. I find this sort of “diagramming” to be particularly enactive of Integral Theory.  It seems to be developing as a particular strength among Integral Theorists. Anyone interested in Integral diagrams and their use should see Stephen Lark’s excellent collection at http://www.flickr.com/photos/slark/sets/939928/ . Mark Edwards (2010) deserves a mention here also for his use of diagrams in exploring Integral Metatheory. See his book Organizational Transformation for Sustainability.

 

Figure 1. Integral Enactment Theory

From “An Ontology of Climate Change” (Esbjörn-Hargens 2010)

 

Sean’s paper is lucid, succinct and it’s packed with deeply considered theoretical advancements. I can’t cover the rest of them here, but I’ll outline some of the other major topics. Sean illustrates the importance and usefulness of including ontological pluralism in climate change discussions, the political and ethical considerations this brings forth; he explores climate change as a multiple object; “enactment” as a more general theoretical concept; he introduces a number of authors contributing to the foundations of Integral Pluralism that will provide valuable perspectives for the Integral community more generally- particularly the work of Michael Carolan; and he concludes with a detailed point by point exposition of the value of ontological plurality for climate change. The 6 pages of endnotes are an essay in them selves and contain some of the best content in the article.

 

Theoretical Subject made Theoretical Object

I’d like to hear other opinions on this, but in my view Sean demonstrates deep leadership in advancing Integral Theory with this paper; for me it is the most important emergence in Integral Theory outside Ken’s work.

Now, I’ll try and help you understand why I’ve said that. It is a big claim, and one that should not be made without due consideration and without a convincing argument to substantiate it. Here goes:

The principle general reason I’ll give for my perspective above is that Sean has been the first author I know of who has definitively made subject a large enough chunk of what currently passes for Integral Theory to make that theory object— with a theory of his own. Again, Mark Edwards must be considered here for his work in exploring Integral Metatheory, but I’ll argue Sean has gone a step farther than Mark in that while Mark has laid out the foundation for a rigorous approach to building metatheory, and he has critiqued current Integral Theory from this perspective, he has not fully illuminated his own encompassing Integral Metatheory. This is a point where I’d love to have a robust conversation and for folks to bring in works and authors that I have missed or excluded in this regard. Or, to dispute or support what I’m saying here, or to correct me where I am wrong. I do think, at the very least, that Sean’s work is of an order that deserves significant discussion and attention.

To summarize Sean’s theoretical developments, Ontological Pluralism is an element within Integral Enactment Theory, which is an enhancement of AQAL Integral Theory both of which are parts of Integral Pluralism. Ontological Pluralism and Enactment, then, form the two most important implied aspects of current Integral Theory “made-object” to bring forth a new subject- Integral Pluralism. I think the implications of this are huge and that they open up a vast territory, and I get the distinct feeling a critical and necessary territory.

 

Dynamic Meta-Types

Now, I’ll move on to more personal reasons for supporting Sean’s latest work. I have been working with “types” and “typologies” as an element of Integral Theory. More recently, I have been working with the theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic meta-types and meta-typologies, or what I sometimes call “dynamic patterns”. And, I’ve developed a technology rooted in this aspect of Integral Theory called PatternDynamics™ (See Appendix 1), which I mentioned previously. This isn’t as complicated at it might sound at first blush, but enacting the full utility of this approach, I realizing now, relies to a large degree on what Sean has brought forth.

Before I can explain the importance of Integral Enactment Theory to dynamic-meta-types and therefore to PatternDynamics™ and go on to introduce PatternDynamics™ itself, I will have to do three things. The first two involve making explicit or enacting theoretical aspects of both Integral Enactment Theory and the AQAL Integral Theory. The third is to demonstrate how types can show up within Integral Pluralism with these distinctions enacted within it.

 

Enactive Direction

Firstly, lets explore the nature of the double hermeneutic in Integral Enactment Theory (IET). A single hermeneutic is associated with a (multiple) subject (epistemology) using (multiple) injunctions, practices, processes or enactments (methodology) to enact (multiple) objects (ontology). The inference here is that a human has subjectivity and it perceives an object that does not. In this instance the object is not changed. As an example let’s go with a girl looking at an ant. With a double hermeneutic there is a subtle but radical change in this arrangement. If the act of a subject perceiving (enacting) an object can lead to change in the object, then the object is not just a material object- it must also be able to subjectively register the results of being enacted! The double hermeneutic is usually explained in terms of one human subject, say a researcher on sexual preferences, enacting an object who is also a human, say a survey participant. Perhaps the methodology of surveying leads to the “objectification” of that survey participant as falling within the categories “heterosexual” and “conventional”. If in the process of doing the survey, the participant learns and subsequently tries sexual practices that take him outside the “heterosexual” and “normal” categories, then we have a double hermeneutic.

If there is a double hermeneutic firmly established within IET and IET acts within the AQAL Integral model, then there can only be multiple subject/objects using mutually enactive multiple methodologies to enact multiple subject/objects across the depth and span of the Integral world-space. Which subject/object we call the “subject” and which one we call the “object” is decided arbitrarily depending on the perspective we take on who is acting on who, or, for that matter, what is acting on what. Lets call this “enactive direction”.

 

Critical Ontology

Enactive direction has an effect on ontology as well. Everything enacted is now a subject/object enacting subject/objects. All matter is sentient and all sentience is material- subject and object are “not two” in any instance. This gives us an opportunity to put a renewed emphasis on embodiment. We can deal with “bodies” now in a way that allows us to go beyond the naïve realism of a purely materialist mechanistic “reality” split off from human awareness (apparently the only perceiving subject in the universe). A form of what I’ll call “critical ontology” placing a renewed focus on bodies has many positive implications for pragmatic outcomes. Once again we can focus on concrete “parts” and “wholes” and how they come together and dynamically unfold, but we do this from new and more sophisticated perspectives. Furthermore, we can engage in embodied critical ontology and combine it with Ontological Pluralism for more effect yet again.

After the existential fragmentation in the aftermath of the post-modern deconstruction of naïve realism, this is quite a relief. We can deal with “real” (all-be-it enacted) things again, whether physical, biological, mental or spiritual, and we can recognize their overlapping (but not fragmented) multiplicity. This is, in part, the implication of Integral post-metaphysics: we don’t need anything “beyond the physical”- beyond embodiment to explain how (to paraphrase Ken Wilber) we get the incredible ongoing organization observable in “frisky dirt”.  Everything is physical, everything has a body- even spirit; and every body has a mind (spirit)- even basic matter. This perspective is one way to begin resolving the “mind/body” problem.

 

Dynamic Embodiment

I want to focus now on the dynamically self-organizing aspect of embodied parts and wholes. A further implied aspect of Integral post-metaphysics is that there is a universal habit of the process of ongoing developmental organization inherent in our embodied “frisky dirt”. This is another way of saying that parts have a habit of ongoing, functional and self-transcending organization into wholes that we call development or evolution. Things come together incessantly and unfold in patterns of increasing complexity. In the process of coming together and remaining together, we get things or bodies - holons (dynamically constructing inter-enacting perspectives) all the way up and all the way down.

If we are not going to ascribe the spontaneous organizational process to some non-physical “spirit” outside of “bodies”, then from an Integral post-metaphysical perspective, it is going to have to be inherent in the nature of ontological embodiment itself. How can we explain “dynamic embodiment” in the context of the post-metaphysical critical ontology put forward here? And, what is its relationship to enactment within Integral Enactment Theory?

 

Semiotic Enactment

I propose that the nature of this process, in its most general form, is essentially semiotic: where semiotic is an ongoing “action inquiry”, a signalling between “bodies”- a sign process that allows for the relational enactment of parts by parts so as to form wholes. We can signify semiotic enactment as the ongoing act of bringing-into-relationship-so-as-to-bring-into-being.  No signalling, no relationship, no enactment, no wholes (no embodiment).  If we look at this from the perspective Sean has put forward in Integral Enactment Theory, then we could say that if there is no methodology (semiotic), then there is no hermeneutic (relationship through interpretation), then no enactment and no ontology (wholes).  An embodied post-metaphysics relies not only on the perspectives of parts and wholes, but also on the subjectivity of objects.  Signs and signalling denote the subjective aspect of embodiment.  As per C.S. Peirce’s (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2010) concept of semiotics, a sign must include a signifier (representamen), a referent (object) and an interpretant (that which enacts a signified)- a mind-like quality capable of subjectively interpreting or enacting something. This quality of “interpretation” in semiotic enactment, with regard to the perspectives I’m illuminating here, should also include other mind-like aspects such as intentionality, memory and discrimination (the ability to make distinctions) and teleology (the ability to impart direction on material processes).

If we look back at Sean’s diagram signifying Integral Enactment Theory in Figure 1, it shows a three part dynamic of enactment- epistemology, methodology, ontology. What I’m attempting to do here is to show the same three-part process in a general form that allows us to take a slightly different perspective, a perspective on dynamic embodiment as signalling/enactment or semiotic enactment.

This is a subtle shift which some of you may see as a metaphysical slight of hand, where a spirit dissociated from matter is removed from the big picture, broken up, and smuggled a little bit each to the vast array of “objects” in the world. In part this perception is correct. However, prescribing some fundamental, inherent "qualities of reality" such as perspectives, subjects, objects, parts, wholes, enactment and semiotics is unavoidable. This is a conversation for another time, but keep in mind, in going beyond (post) “beyond physics” (metaphysics) we need not erase non physical attributes, we need only place them where we may have a reasonable attempt at providing evidence to back any assertion we may make on that basis.

 

Integral Kosmosemiosis

Another way of looking at all this is that the universe is composed of sentient beings at all levels— from atoms to molecules to cells, to… you get the idea. All of which are embodiments (subject/object/part/wholes) in multitudes of semiotic/enactive relationships of varying degrees of intensity with other embodiments, in an unimaginably complex, overlapping, inter-enacting, meshwork of meshworks we call the Kosmos. If that is the case, then we may consider a distributed organizational “intelligence” that bootstraps “raw” embodiment through evolutionary processes of semiotic enactment into more and more complex, more and more concentrated, and more and more sentient forms. The "intelligence" is carried and signalled at all levels of enactment. This approach can explain why successful "patterns" of embodiment/enactment are used again and again— they are successful, so they are copied, and they are able to be copied because the dynamic patterns of enactment (forms of embodiment) are being continuously signalled in a vast field of dynamic sentient embodiment. This would explain the connection between awareness and light in many traditions— light being the fastest, most rarified, most all pervasive physical signalling mechanism we have identified, at least as a matter of general acceptance. Proof, then of this post-metaphysical position could come in the form of the discovery of rarefied signaling mechanisms that form "fields" of embodied awareness. The build in complexity/consciousness can then move from metaphysics— a God as Kosmic conductor without a provable mechanism for this process— to post-metaphysics —Spirit as enactive semiotic embodiment with plausable mechanisms of embodiment. I’ll signify this perspective on post-metaphysics as Integral Kosmosemiosis.

Now, perhaps, we can proceed with offending as few people as possible. Modernists can have real objects again (ontology), Traditionalists have spirit again (epistemology), Post Modernists have inter-subjectivity (methodology)- which they, necessarily, were unlikely to give up- and of course us Integral types can have all three.

Getting back to the concept of dynamic embodiment, we also need to include in semiotic enactment the idea that it is iterative or process oriented.  As well as being essentially enactive, semiotics is also inherently dynamic- it is an iterative process of dynamic organization. Semiotic enactment signifies the moment-to-moment dynamically evolving embodiment brought forth through an Integral world-space.  As Peirce (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2010) has pointed out, each interpretant “determines” (enacts) a new representamen (representation or enactment/embodiment) that goes on to enact another embodiment which goes on enacting in a cascading evolutionary process of bringing-into-being.  Semiotic enactment may look different in each of the domains of matter (geosemiotics), body (biosemiotics), mind (semiotics) and spirit (kosmosemiotics) but the pattern (or, as we will see, patterns) is the same.

We have now concluded the first step in our enactment of dynamic meta-types: a series of moves that allow us to derived a particular set of perspectives based on AQAL Integral Theory and Integral Enactment Theory. These perspectives bring forth a focus on embodiment through critical ontology; and they allow me to propose semiotic enactment to account for the dynamic, self-organizing, evolutionary processes of embodiment.

 

Span and Depth

Our second step is to enact a focus on span in AQAL Integral Theory.  What we have done in step 1 is to actually construct a set of perspectives that I think are particularly useful for working with span.  The goal of step 2 is to enact aspects of span that will allow us to put these perspectives to work.

When we are working with depth we are often focused toward the leading edge of any enactment (I’ll use the terms embodiment and enactment interchangeably from this point on), or at least focused on the location of things within the framework of directionality. The perspective of the “verticality” of any embodiment tends to be the focus, which of course is fine- in fact it is, of course, essential. Also, we often focus on the processes of evolution (big picture) or development (smaller scales of embodiment). When we are dealing with depth we are often looking to the “frothy edge,” newly formed grooves in the Kosmos that are yet to be deepened and widely disseminated. But, what about the already well-worn grooves? What about the vast “horizontal” span of deeply already-formed patterns of matter, body, mind and spirit? What could placing a focus on span in Integral Theory and Practice look like?

The posing of this question, just bringing attention to horizontal span, should be enough for us to have completed step 2. Now, we can move on to step 3.

 

Types- Dynamic Patterns of Embodiment

I propose that with a focus on span we can enact what looks a lot like sets of dynamic patterns of organization. Whether we are looking at an ant colony, a banking system, a human body, a theory, a geological structure, a corporation or a satori these will all be enacted as span where they follow established patterns of embodiment. Each will be a unique variation, but they will only ever be variations on a theme. They will be a “type” of recognizable form or pattern. They will also be dynamic in that they are constituted of constantly iterating semiotic enactments. From this perspective a “type” in Integral Theory is an established pattern of enactment- a dynamic pattern of parts that constitute a recognizable whole. Every corporation may be different, but they are all types of corporation. All ant colonies are different in unique ways but they are all types of ant colonies. They are all recognizable patterns of dynamic embodiment.  This brings us back around to types, meta-types and PatternDynamics™.

Types have many interesting features. I won’t enumerate them all here, just the ones we need for this particular occasion. For instance masculine/feminine types can manifest as a matter of biological gender (female/male) (UR),  be seen as kinds of societies (matriarchal/patriarchal) (LR), revealed as different values within a culture (communal/individualistic) (LL) and felt as different textures of experience (feminine/ masculine) (UL).

(For anyone interested in more background on what I’m introducing here, I have described a more complete set of the properties of types, their relation to patterns, pattern languages and the development of PatternDynamics™ in an article, also in the Spring 2010 edition of the Integral Journal of Theory and Practice, entitled “Developing an Integral Sustainability Pattern Language.” (Winton 2010) This blog post will also form the core theoretical component of a paper I’m preparing for presentation at the Integral Theory Conference in San Francisco in late July this year. Either that paper or my presentation of it at the conference may also serve as useful resources for anyone interested in working with PatternDynamics™ as an Integral technology or anyone interested more generally in working with types and meta-types within Integral Theory. Also see www.patterndynamics.com.au for more information and resources.)

 

Meta-Types

I actually consider the masculine/feminine set of types or typology to be a set of dynamic meta-types or a meta-typology. To make things a little simpler, I’ll drop the descriptor “dynamic” from dynamic meta-types at this stage and just use the signifier "meta-types". A meta-type, as I signify it, is a deep Kosmic groove, one that was embodied so long ago that it is a very general dynamic pattern influencing forms of embodiment across the length and breadth of the Kosmos. If you think carefully of all the places we enact feminine/masculine types of embodiment this becomes quite clear. They show up to characterize parts of language, body types, management systems, personal styles, ecological dynamics and kinds of societies to name just a few examples.

Meta-types allow us to know enduring patterns of organization. This in turn allows us to see and adjust these patterns where they are unbalanced or un-integrated in an embodiment.

PatternDynamic™ is a set of meta-types designed to allow us to do exactly that. What is helpful about learning to recognize masculine and feminine meta-types (or any meta-type) in a wide variety of situations is that this allows us to correct problems in embodiment where the dynamic patterns are not correctly balanced during enactment. Let’s say your work place has a very dominant feminine dynamic (enactment) and it is leading to problems of hyper-communion. A problematic aspect of this might be that decision-making is so distributed and so dependent on consulting absolutely everyone that effective decisions rarely get made. Balancing this dynamic with the introduction of more masculine agency in decision-making, allowing authorized people to make some decisions with brief consultations, may bring more health to the situation. PatternDynamics™ is a whole set of meta-types within a framework that can help us learn to recognize and adjust a range of dynamics, including but not limited to masculine/feminine ones.

Using meta-types gives us a way to bring forth health as well as evolution within the AQAL matrix. Depth and span, health and evolution, become more fully enacted complimentary aspects in Integral Theory. This development in turn leads us to complimenting the idea of Kosmic address with Kosmic enactment.

 

Kosmic Positioning System

I’m championing types generally and meta-types in particular because I think they are a key, under enacted element in Integral Theory, and as mentioned above, through a fuller illumination we may move to compliment AQAL Location with AQAL Dynamics.

Types are referred to as “items that may be present at any stage or state” (Wilber, 2006, pp. 11). This indicates that types are the only one of the five primary AQAL elements that are not related to location or address within the AQAL framework.

In the end notes to his article, Sean proposes a Kosmic positioning system, which is subtly different to Kosmic address. An address implies a static place. A positioning system implies a way of tracking something that is dynamiclly unfolding. In this way embodiment may be enacted within the AQAL matrix with a “location” (depth) and with “dynamics” (span)- address and enactment. A useful analogy here is that of position and trajectory within a Cartesian world-space. Having only the position of an object within an x and y coordinate system is fine, but it is greatly complimented and much more useful if its movement or trajectory is also known.

This is the completion of our last step. Integral Enactment Theory is important to dynamic meta-types (or just meta-types) and therefore to PatternDynamics™ because IET more fully enacts embodiment, which illuminates semiotic enactment, which puts a focus on horizontal span which brings forth the utility of complimenting Kosmic address with Kosmosemiosis, or from a slightly different perspective, of enacting the practice of bringing health (through meta-types) as consort to enacting the practice of recognizing evolution (through the quadrants) in Integral Theory.

It also completes the initial enactment of Kosmosemiosis as a nascent contribution to Integral Theory, and it demonstrates the place of PatternDynamics™ as an Integral technology within Integral Pluralism.

I’ll end with a series of sketches of diagrams and a short conclusion that will help enact meta-types as compliments to the primordial perspectives signified by the AQAL quadrants.

Figure 2 illustrates “Integral Enactment” in a simplified version of Sean’s diagram in Figure 1, which shows a more comprehensive diagram of “Integral Enactment Theory”.

 

 

Figure 2      Integral Enactment

 

Figure 3 below shows how we can move from Integral enactment to semiotic enactment. Figure 3 indicates an iterative quality with traced-over lines representing the ongoing semiotic process between parts that enacts them as a whole. Notice how the double hermeneutic of Figure 2 becomes the semiotic “point” illustrated in Figure 3. Also note how the subject and object shapes in Figure 2 become the “joined” rounded shape of an infinity type symbol. Interestingly, the diagram in figure 3 also looks like a version of some phase space diagrams used to demonstrate the nature of “attractors” in Chaos Theory.

 

 

Figure 3     Semiotic Enactment

 

By drawing an encompassing oval around the “parts” shown in Figure 3, Figure 4 below illustrates meta-types as semiotic embodiment. I think it is the primary or original meta-type or dynamic pattern of the Kosmos. I call it “Source”. Source is simply the meta-pattern representing the fact that everything in the Kosmos exhibits part/whole/subject/object/semiotic/enactment. Another way of saying this is that the first and deepest organizing principle at work in the Kosmos is that the Kosmos self-organizes and evolves.

Figure 4    “Source”

 

Figure 5 shows how types can be represented within an AQAL diagram as a way of illustrating a particular dynamic or set of dynamics at a horizontal location or locations. This diagram also shows Source, the primary meta-type, and its relationship to the primordial perspectives of the AQAL quadrants. What this diagram helps illustrate is that the quadrants themselves represent a meta-type, a dynamic pattern of enactment originating where the perspectives intersect at the centre of the cross.  The semiotic “point” of the Source diagram overlaid with the quadrant intersection “point” indicates that they are two different but overlapping ways of signifying original/primordial patterns/perspectives: both diagrams include subject/object/part/wholes and a signification of unfolding development. One focuses on “forming” vertical depth (creative novelty) and the other on “formed” horizontal span (dynamic patterns). As per Sean’s introduction of Ontological Pluralism, we now have representations of two overlapping Integral objects- one enacted from a focus on “horizontal” perspectives and one from a focus on “vertical” perspectives.  

Figure 5 also illustrates the relationship of types to meta-types.  Types are more specific dynamic patters that we can identify at a location. The popular Myer-Briggs types are a good example. They are types of personality located in certain lines at certain levels of the Upper-Left quadrant. Meta-types, like masculine/feminine more general and can be applied at wider locations. The primary meta-type, Source, is the most general and most widely observed organizing principle: that the universe has deeply ingrained habit of evolutionary self-organization is observable in any enactment.

 

 

Figure 5     AQAL Diagram

 

Figure 6, entitled Integral Kosmosemiosis, signifies a primordial integrated perspectival/semiotic aspect of the Kosmos. It is an integrated form of Source. As a primordial meta-type we can work with it using the same method we use to work with any other meta-types: learn to recognize them and balance them in service of enduring health and ongoing evolution. Meta-types like masculine and feminine are aspects of Source, as are all of the other patterns in the PatternDynamics™ chart. By learning them, or any other system of meta-types, we can learn to see and balance the dynamics of Source, without having to work out the complexity of it. We may come to relax and trust in the evolutionary intelligence of the Kosmos, to play in the enactment of Kosmosemiosis such that we work with it rather than against it.

 

 

Figure 6    Symbol of Integral Kosmosemiosis

 

What I’m really trying to do here is to encourage a move to a more span based, horizontally focused, dynamically oriented, ontological embodiment concerned with enduring health- what I would characterize as a more feminine approach in Integral- to compliment the yet-to-be-balanced focus on the more depth based, vertically focused, address oriented, epistemological knowing, evolutionarily concerned masculine approach enacted to date in Integral Theory and Practice. This discussion is in service of more fully enacting Integral Theory as a dance in our radiant embodiment as well as a dive into our conscious depth. A little Integral Eve for our Integral Adam. A Barbie for Ken. :-)

TIM WINTON works in applied integral sustainability as a practitioner, educator and designer. He is founder and managing director of Permaforest Trust (www.permaforesttrust.org.au), an independent, not-for-profit sustainability education organization located in northern New South Wales, Australia. He is developing PatternDynamics™ as both an open source community resource for not-for-profit organizations and individuals and as a commercial sustainability education product for the corporate and institutional sectors. See www.patterndynamics.com.au to download charts and stay informed of the latest developments in PatternDynamics.™

 

 

Appendix 1

 

To downloand the chart go to www.patterndynamics.com.au

 

References

 

Edwards. M, (2010). Organisational transformation for sustainability: an integral metatheory. New York, NY: Routledge

Esbjorn-Hargens. S, & Zimmerman. M, (2009). Integral ecology : uniting perspectives on the natural world. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Esbjörn-Hargens. S, (2010). An ontology of climate change: integral pluralism and the enactment of multiple objects. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 4 (5).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2010) Retrieved April 28th, 2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/

Wilber. K, (2006). Integral spirituality: a startling new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Winton. T, (2010). Developing an integral sustainability pattern language. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 4 (5).