The Integration Website
        Co-Developing the Noosphere


Printer-friendly version


Texts Menu

Main Menu

The Integrative Style

The Art Galleries

Temenos 1+2

Temenos (Concise)


The Temenos Model
(extended version)
 [by Ray Harris]


Education - Politics - Criminology - Arts - Sport - Business
Economy - Psychology - Medicine - Sexuality - Gender - Meetings


Naturally an integral education will involve learning about all four quadrants at the appropriate level. Needless to say that modern curricula can be said to be deficient in their treatment of all four quadrants, with the UR being emphasised.

This means that the other three are somewhat ignored. But can the ‘education system’ as it is now constituted cope with these quadrants ? given that the family and the social milieu are also a major source of learned behaviour?

Suppose we are attempting to teach the child Level 3B concepts of democracy and civil responsibility when that child comes from a family locked into level 2B script pathologies mixed with a 2B religious belief. What if that child is in the same classroom with a child who is showing early level 4A intuitions and who comes from a family that has a parent experimenting with level 5 awareness within a level 6 mystical tradition. Can the simple mechanics of managing a classroom of 20-25 students allow the effective treatment of individual development? Can the school, as we know it survive?

It would seem to me that an integral education must involve the active participation of the parents. Enrolling a child in an integral curriculum must involve enrolling the parents as well. The parents may very well have to attend classes of their own, especially if the family dynamic is inhibiting UL and LL development. The school would need to be a community resource centre open in the evenings and on weekends. There will need to be level specific activities that involve the whole family and the community in general.

Can this work in a level 2B community? Here I want to point out a difference between Australia and the US. In Australia the State Governments are solely responsible for education policy (which has consistently been based on a 3B liberal education). In the US local School Boards are elected to advise on policy. The latter situation has allowed Christian fundamentalists to pursue their agendas in several school districts, with the absurd situation that certain books are banned and in Kansas Creationism promoted. Of course the flipside is that progressive communities are able to influence policy as well. But the point I wish to make here is essentially a political one. How can an integral education make its way in this environment? Perhaps the US solution is to work with progressive communities first, prove itself, then push into the State and Federal agendas. Perhaps this will best be accomplished by starting a school in a receptive district.

Of course, creating a more integral curriculum is at least a small step forward.

What can a conventional school do? Let’s assume we have to work with schools as they are presently constituted. I think that one of the most important things that can be done is to include a comprehensive self-development stream. This must be developed to integrate Left-Hand with the Right-Hand. I would suggest this is especially important at Junior High level ? simply because kids are left pretty high and dry at this stage.

Understanding Adolescence

I think teenagers are getting confused because society itself doesn’t understand adolescence, or can’t bring itself to face the challenge.

Adolescence is marked by a confused breakthrough into level 3. Early adolescence is marked by a consuming battle between sub-levels i, ii and iii. Society seems to want to ignore this and wait for the transition to either 3B or at least 3A-iv. Some of course, want to impose a return to 2B values (all they need is discipline!).

But none of this works. Why?

Level 3A-i is a period of confusion. There is an appropriate need to leave the family but in safe increments. This is best dealt with by the parents who must tread a fine line. They must be there to support the child as an emergent level 3 child but not as a level 2 child. Treating them at level 2 will cause a rebellion. But here is a contradiction, at some times the child will revert to level 2 dependency, and that is OK. So the parent needs to be sensitive to this. So does the School. So expect fluctuation, expect mood swings.

If all goes well the child begins to search for a new level of belonging and security at 3A-ii. This is the period of peer group pressure. A period where sub-level ii mimics level 2 mythic-membership. Here the adolescent turns to the peer group for support and values. It is absolutely essential for the resolution of 3A-i confusion. But here is the tough issue. Parents and adults are not allowed. It is a world of tribal language and fads (and boy don’t the marketeers know it, Nike rules!) ? the intention being to keep adults out! And this is where some adults freak out. ‘What are my kids up to’! and they revert to 2B disciplinary threats ? which don’t work.

The best thing at this stage is for adults to impose a 3B-ii structure and encourage 3A-iii, iv understanding. The worst thing to do is remove structure. And I think this is where the green meme gets it horribly wrong. Rights and responsibilities are linked. You cannot properly exercise your rights if you don’t exercise responsibility. It is therefore very dangerous to give teens at this stage ‘rights’ when they are rebelling against ‘responsibility’ ? which they generally identify as level 2B paternalistic restriction.

A level 3B-ii structure is one that has set rules but that applies those rules using fairness. I would suggest that this implies, rather than a single paternalistic figure (such as a Principal ? 2B) meting out discipline that this be done by some joint student/staff jury (one that is seen to be impartial and fair). This encourages the students to consider 3B values and 3B structures.

But their next step is to break away from the peer group into true individualism (3A-iii). This can only happen once they have satisfied 3A-ii needs ? and attacking 3A-ii grouping only serves to consolidate it and prevent kids breaking out. The way out is by following the example of a level 3A-iii Hero appropriate to particularities of the 3A-ii peer group. (In other words, it’s no use talking about how great Michael Jordan is to a peer group that idolises Marilyn Manson. But what you can do is talk about how Marilyn Manson exemplifies 3A-iii values ? albeit in extremis).

In an appropriately supportive environment most kids will move easily from sub-level i to iv.

But it can also go horribly wrong. If a child cannot integrate sub-level ii they may stay at sub-level i. Sub-level i can bring with it depression and a fascination with death. Most kids will move through this stage quickly, others become fixated by it. Some aspects of the music, film and gaming business exploit it. For most kids this is just play. For the teen who is unable to fit in to a peer group this can have tragic consequences. It can lead to depression, suicide and in some extreme cases, murder. The Columbine shooting seemed to be perpetrated by two boys who regarded themselves as ‘outcasts’ and who did not fit into the standard 3A-ii peer groups. 

(I should also note that there is another dangerous transition point at 3B-i. This tends to happen at early adulthood as the individual attempts to take their place in society. If they are frustrated ? and often the trigger is youth unemployment ? they struggle to make the transition and wallow in 3B-i depression and aimlessness, sometimes turning to drug addiction, sometimes directly to suicide).

An Integral educational program must therefore look carefully at how the individual is making the transition across all levels and sub-levels. This also means that Integral education should not confine itself to the classic primary, secondary and tertiary classifications. Integral education should be life long and provide the knowledge required to make a successful transition at all levels. It should always be pointing to the next step.

Which brings me to a final point. In my opinion the best teachers most often express 3B-iv, v values. It is rare to find a teacher who has succeeded in making the transition to level 4. The standard ‘liberal’ education is at most a creation of 3B values. This means that students will have to go outside normal education to find any level higher than 3B. So we need to look at what a level 4, or Second Tier, teaching institution would look like. And I might add what a level 5 and level 6 teaching institution would look like. We cannot assume they would look alike.

Perhaps what I am suggesting here is that rather than accept the standard primary, secondary and tertiary classifications that Integral education develops educational structures suitable for each level. Keeping in mind the developmental differences of the sub-levels and the often vast difference between a child in transition from 3A-i to 3A-ii and a child in transition from 3A-iii to 3A-iv (often the difference between junior and senior high).


To put it bluntly politics is the exercise of power. And each level and sub-level has a different way of exercising power. Understanding this will help political theorists analyse and it will help political activists act.

Now in providing a summary I have chosen to exclude certain levels, partly for the sake of brevity and partly because I want to confine my comments to politics as they are, rather than politics as they might be.

Levels of Political concern.

2A - power is given to the family or clan. Here loyalty to the family/clan group is the highest virtue. Political action is taken to benefit the family/clan. A partial example is Iran where Saddam Hussein has given power and wealth to his clan .

2B - power is given to a patriarchal association. This association demands loyalty above and beyond family/clan. Many organised crime groups are prime examples ? the Mafia, Yakuza, Triads. It is also particularly evident in the military, especially military regimes.

3A - power is given to the individual. The individual exercises power through free association, which nonetheless can create powerful opportunistic networks of mutual benefit. Many Corporations operate at this level. The prime rule here is competition and the survival of the fittest (Darwin rules OK?).

3B - power is given to institutions. The ideal is to balance rights with responsibilities. An independent judiciary becomes essential in resolving conflict.

4A - power is given to dharma/holism. I would argue that this is the highest collective level. Levels above this are transpersonal and transsocietal. But what is dharma? Precisely the question a Second Tier think-tank needs to answer (sheesh, what a cop-out - but seriously, it’s a collective decision).

Political conflict.

Whilst the USA was founded on noble 3B values the actual ‘realpolitik’ has been a 3A struggle between competing interests. Some of these competing interests have been inter-level groups and some have been trans-level groups. 3A groups have struggled with 3B groups and 2B groups have struggled with 3A and 3B. Other societies can be seen as predominantly 2A, 2B, 3A or 3B with many groups within that society expressing different level values. All of which make for considerable conflict. How do these societies handle conflict? Let me make these suggestions:

2A - Handles conflict by exclusion. The family/clan monopolises the economy and the institutions of power. The marginalised groups are forced to eke out an existence on the margins. Rebellion is violently and murderously suppressed. An example of this would be the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

2B - Handles conflict by repression. The ruling faction allows other groups provided they pledge loyalty. Disloyalty and rebellion is kept in check by repressive policing. Loyalty is rewarded, disobedience severely punished. Wealth and power are given as rewards.

3A - Handles conflict by competition. This society promotes competition between individuals with the spoils going to the winners. The ‘losers’ are controlled by exclusion and shaming. The means of repression are largely psychological and indirect as direct violence and repression is seen as crude. People acquiesce under the presumption that one day they too can become a ‘winner’ and that ‘losing’ is ‘their’ fault ? despite the fact that the so-called ‘winners’ have rigged the rules. It appears equal, but isn’t. In other words 3A doesn’t accept that systemic injustice exists, self-effort overcomes all.

3B - Handles conflict by arbitration. This society recognises that competition is not always fair or equal. It attempts to set up independent mechanisms of jurisprudence. Rebellion is handled by arrest and judgement.

4A - Handles conflict through resolution and mediation. Rather than allow a judiciary to decide, this society creates institutions that allow the conflicting parties to reach their own resolution. The law is flexible. The conflicting parties are ‘enabled’ to appreciate a greater picture. Policing will still be necessary ? but the emphasis is on greater tolerance, empowerment and self-mediation. 


As I mentioned above it is possible for a level to appropriate the language of another level. This is a common problem in the political domain and can create considerable confusion in analysis. For example, many 2B citizens in a 3B ‘constitutional’ society (ie the US) advocate the rule of law. It appears that they are upholding ‘constitutional’ values. However, what they are in fact often doing is ‘resonating’ with 3B-iib values and interpreting them in a thoroughly 2B manner. Thus jurisprudence is pressured to punish and control in a patriarchal manner. Judges are seen as punishing father figures. Laws are configured to control and repress. In other words, level 2B has appropriated level 3B. 

Level 3A appropriates 3B by using government to support the ‘winners’. Representatives are lobbied and electorates manipulated to advance sectional interests (candidates ‘win’ elections). 3A calls this democracy, but it is far from what 3B regards democracy to be. 3B demands that representatives are ‘independent’ of opportunistic ‘special interests’.

But these are just a few examples.

The I-I should be very cautious about ‘appropriation’. Any 2B, 3A or 3B group can ‘appropriate’ Integralism.

The Four Quadrants

In my opinion the four quadrants outline the potential areas of interest or concern of any level. Therefore one can have a 2B group pursuing either left or right, up or down concerns, similarly with any other level. So a 3A corporation may be seeking to exploit UR medicine, a 3A association may be pursuing control of a local community (LR), a 3A individual (or group) may regard their UL translation as significant and seek to promote it, or a 3A movement may seek to ‘colonise’ (to use deliberate jargon) the LL. So I think it is perfectly legitimate, in general terms, to analyse social or political movements such as ‘anarcho-individualism’ as a 3A-UL group (sorry for the oxymoron), or the Mormon Church as a 2B-LR group. Provided that we realise things ain’t that simple. Many groups act across two or more of the quadrants. 

And action in one quadrant necessarily affects the other quadrants.

Right and Left, Liberal and Conservative.

All political groups will have some members at various levels. However each political group tends to express the values of a specific level. You will tend to find more 2B and 3A people aligned in Conservative and Right-Wing groups, and 3A and 3B aligned in so-called Liberal and Left-Wing groups.

Because of this you will find that people attracted to the I-I will have a predominantly ‘Liberal’ and ‘Progressive’ background. The idealism of the left has always been a fair, equal and just society ?3B. (The mistake of the Marxist revolutions was to use 2B methods, thus subverting their idealism and thus reverting to 2B authoritarianism ? Marxism itself being a 3B-iva cognitive analysis). The idealism of the Right has supposedly been 3B ‘rights and responsibilities’, in actual realpolitik practice it has always been 2B ‘privilege and elitism’. The Right has been very adept at ‘appropriating’ 3B values. The record is clear.

A different politics

But the I-I is about a different politics. I have said above that I regard 4A to be the highest true political level and that one of the key concepts of this level is ‘resolution’. Here I would suggest that ‘resolution’ implies mediating the conflict to a higher level of understanding where the ‘conflict’ is seen in a broader perspective. The ‘mediating agency’ will need to carefully and diplomatically guide the conflict to resolution ? the guiding principle being ‘the Prime Directive’. The ‘means’ is the ‘end’. The ‘process’ is the teacher. The I-I will have achieved a considerable deal if it helps mediate this process into political culture.

A digression ? the Welfare State.

An example of how different levels view a single issue is the current debate in the west regarding welfare. Broadly there are two problems with the welfare state. The first is a matter of simple affordability. Many governments are finding the welfare budget to be too large and growing (for many reasons). The second reason, and the one that concerns us here, is largely ideological, many groups differ as to what welfare ought to be. This ideological divide can be explained in part by looking at the levels.

The idea of the welfare state is pretty much a pure 3B ideal. The intention of welfare is to redistribute inequalities of income and thus ‘enable’ the recipients to enter ‘a level playing field’.

2B objects to welfare because it appears to encourage non-allegiance. 2B understands charity but only to those who accept the mores of the 2B group. 2B buys allegiance. However welfare is given to all members of society regardless of any 2B affiliations. 2B for instance becomes concerned about ‘single mothers’ and the ‘moral implications’. It is a control issue.

3A objects to welfare simply because it values individual effort. It does not recognise systemic inequality. Poverty is simply seen as a lack of skill or effort and the just reward for laziness or stupidity. Every 3A true-believer states that competitive effort and skill will give anyone a chance at the top job (anyone can become President).

3B creates welfare to counterbalance systemic inequality. However ‘lazy’ welfare can create dependency, especially in 2A, 2B recipients. 3A and 3B recipients are more likely to use welfare correctly as a temporary aid. 3B can be concerned about the side effect of welfare dependency and devise ways to ensure welfare acts to ‘enable’ rather than confine. 

Here I want to note that levels 2B and 3A ‘appropriate’ the legitimate concerns about welfare dependency and twist it to their own ends. Welfare dependency is used as an excuse to wind back social services to suit 2B or 3A agendas.

I think the solution to the problem lies in identifying that it is 2A and 2B that become dependent on welfare and that an ‘enabling’ system allows individuals to realise a higher level. But this actually involves a shift from 3B to 4A thinking. The key to 4A is that it always seeks to actively enable growth. 3B can be passive, thinking that a handout is all that is needed. 3B also falls into the illusion that ‘tweaking’ can cause equality. 4A recognises that inequality arises out of ‘level’ inequality. And here we can show that the poorer members of society are generally also those at a lower ‘level’ ? which introduces the interesting question of ‘class’ as an expression of levels.

The coup in Fiji

I’m writing about this because it has immediacy. As I write this hostages are still being held. How can we understand what has happened using the levels and sub-levels?

The Fijian tribal system is mainly at level 2A. 

There is racial tension with Indians introduced by the British to farm sugar. Hinduism is a culture with great depth; this has allowed the children of the immigrants to succeed educationally and commercially. The Indians opened businesses and succeeded at levels 2B, 3A and 3B.

The Fijians have largely remained at 2A, with the exception of an educated Fijian middle-class who have experience at 2B, 3A and 3B.

Both Indians and Fijians at higher levels have entered government and business (the majority of businesses are run by Indians). The captive Labor government consists of Indians and Fijians. The racial tension was inflamed because Prime Minister Choudry, despite being fairly elected, was of Indian heritage.

However the majority of Fijians (expressing 2A concerns) have always felt threatened by the success of the Indians. This is a 2A-i fear of loss of economic power and livelihood. Coupled with this is a fear of loss of security and identity ? 2A-ii. These fears have led to a repeated response from the Fijians, expel the Indians, remembering that expulsion and marginalisation is a 2A response to conflict.

George Speight, the coup leader, is a classical 3A opportunist. He belongs to the educated middle-class (of mixed heritage ? Anglo-Fijian, educated in the US and having lived in Australia ? where he still has family). He is using the often repeated fears of 2A Fijians as an excuse to gain power. His demands include being made a minister (Prime Minister in reality) of any new government. This new government would alienate all Indians. He has wide, but not total support, from 2A Fijians (in the last couple of days the Chiefs from tourist driven West Fiji have declared the wish to separate from the East where the coup occurred). He does not have broad support amongst 3B Fijians (in the military, judiciary and civil service). They understand how regressive his coup is. Speight was sacked from several important positions by the government he overthrew. What he gains is power and privilege. He wins. He is supported by a small band of men organised at 2B and who are behaving in a typical 2B gang mentality. If he maintains power it is difficult not to see his rule operating as a 2B dictatorship, with Speight and his cronies dispensing favours, albeit from a pseudo-democratic façade.

What is the way out of this mess? It will take time. The essential dynamic is the 2A fear of the majority of Fijians. They must see that their economic security and ethnic identity is secure. The Hindu community must understand that they must be seen to actively assist this process ? this is not the time for cultural pride. Specific policies must be put in place to educate Fijian villagers into a 3B understanding. This is of course, a difficult and sensitive process and will take time. And it is a process that must occur under a 3B constitutional system (which sadly was in place until Speight’s coup).

Of course the situation in Fiji is somewhat more complex than I have outlined. I have simplified things to illustrate how the levels and sub-levels are at play ? that the coup is the result of 2A-i, ii fears. It is not, for example, a 2B or 3A conflict. These would have a different nature. Indeed the resolution of the conflict has become somewhat stalled through deference to ritualised 2A negotiations where tribal affiliations are paramount. The army and police cannot act because of the complexities of tribal loyalties. 


Different levels engage in different criminal activity. Criminal activity is an expression of frustrated level needs.

The ‘Bloods’ and ‘Crips’ express a pathological level 2B security need caused by poverty and marginalisation. This 2B need also resonates with the harmonic meta-theme of ‘Terrible Father, Hero and Civilis’ with the third component truncated. In other words, self-identity is forged through a violent battle with tyrannical forces (there must always be two gangs ? there must always be a battle).

So what are these crimes?

1A, B crime is a crime of instinctual immediacy. Flight or fight. It is often unconscious and passionate.

2A crime is often incestual. It is against family or clan and arises out of 2A frustrated needs.

2B crime is often violent and involves basic power needs. Rape and violence are used to maintain 2B patriarchal norms. Hate crimes fall into this category. 2B also uses graft and blackmail to corrupt other levels.

3A crimes are vanity crimes. The law is broken to enhance self worth, either through publicity or the gain of a desired object.

3B crimes are institutional. It is where an institution deprives any other level of its needs.

4A crime is arrogance and the failure to selflessly attend to span and depth. It is the use of mastery to enslave the other levels. It is consciously and arrogantly manipulative with its motive often being cynicism.


2A judges using ritualised formulations based on familial or clan affiliations.

2B judges using ‘paternalistic’ rules. This can be arbitrary and dependent on the whim of the leader of the group.

3A judges on merit. Merit is arbitrarily defined by those who regard themselves as meritorious. Those who are considered meritorious are given leniency; those who are considered ‘losers’ are treated more harshly.

3B judges by arbitration. A society develops and independent judiciary with codified laws.

4A judges by mediation. 4A seeks to realise the needs of the litigants through mediation. The law is not absolute but relative to the needs of those involved. Laws are codified but the aggrieved parties can mediate (within reason).

A brief example. The three strikes law is a 2B ‘law and order’ response. The law is used to punish and the circumstances and needs of the offender are ignored.

Fortunately more enlightened souls are introducing mediation to the 3B legal system (which, as an aside ? is overrun by 3A lawyers turning the system into ‘the cleverest wins and makes lots of money’). I’m happy to say Australia is making important gains in this regard, despite regressive ‘three strikes’ legislation in West Australia and the Northern Territory.


Level 2A and 2B arts were governed by guilds and dedicated to the glorification of the ruling authority. Royal patronage was especially important.

Level 3A is the realm of the individual artist. The arts are today largely governed by this level. Individual expression rules.

Level 3B is group art. Such as Orchestras, Theatre, etc. Anyone who has participated in a successful ‘group’ creative endeavour knows there is a certain magic. 3B tends to value this form of ‘high culture’ because it exemplifies a core value of participation.

Level 4A is mastery. What defines a piece of work as a masterpiece? Perhaps that it successfully integrates many different levels? Or that it captures the Soul? There is a transcendent quality. The ‘genius’ of the work grabs our attention and the artist and viewer are overwhelmed. Some artists would describe this as the work doing them. But whatever it is it is what we value the most.

When we talk about integral art are we talking about a translation of a transpersonal experience, perhaps into a painting, a piece of music? It is possible for a 2B artisan or a 3A ‘artist’ to have a transpersonal experience and to simply translate that into an art ‘object’. And certainly art has been very concerned with representations of the divine ? but is this all there is?

The great nondual sage Abhinavagupta is also recognised as one of India’s greatest aestheticians. He stated that good art captured certain rasa’s or flavours/moods. An artwork could express the ‘erotic’ rasa or the ‘joyful’ or ‘melancholic’ rasa. Truly great art however, used a rasa to alter your consciousness and give you a taste of the ‘oneness’ or ‘Heart’ behind all phenomena. Truly great art might give you a direct taste of the subtle, the causal or the non-dual. Truly great art will affect you. Truly great art will introduce you to the guiding archetype behind the work and leave it at the edge of your consciousness.

So whilst I think that the I-I should encourage the ‘translative’ representation of the divine I think we should be seeking out art that ‘captures our soul’. That exhibits ‘genius’.

It is my feeling that as we move more solidly into 3B and start to have more experience of 4A that the forms of art will change. 4A I feel will involve multi-disciplinary art with a break down of the audience/viewer ? art work dichotomy. I note the move in the ‘rave’ scene to a DJ who orchestrates a total experience of sound, light and dance (and drugs ?ecstasy being an important component) to induce a trance high. I expect this emergent artform to develop to include multiple styles and multiple media as a collaboration between artists. The full development of digital imaging and surround sound will increase the tools available. Imagine if you will an innovative dance company eliciting the services of a digital video artist, surround sound technician, digital light show director and various other performers creating an interactive dance party/rave that explores the development of music through the chakras. The piece starts off with African drummers and tribal dance and moves dramatically through each level, ending with a transcendent symphony of Bulgarian choir and ambient electronics…


It is well recognised that physical activity can induce ‘peak’ experiences. Athletes talk about entering the ‘zone’. But not all sporting activity leads to the same type of peak experience, or to stabilisation of the peak.

Sport idolises level 3A. Sporting ‘heroes’ are created (Nike, a rampant 3A Corporation actively promotes this aspect of sport). The sporting ‘system’ also encourages iib sub-group loyalties. Why is regressive energy released?

In the east physicality was disciplined into the service of the transpersonal. Hatha yoga actively encourages transcendence. Even the aggressive ‘martial’ arts had pathways to the higher levels. The true kung fu master didn’t need to lay a hand on anyone; such was his command of chi.

These are open questions. Sport is not really my thing, but what does Integral Sport look like?


The business community is largely ruled by 3A values. It is a master at ‘appropriating’ other values. The advertising industry is actively involved in perpetuating 3A values in order to increase the ‘market’ (which in reality is a 3A myth ? a sort of ‘playing field’ in which the 3A ‘game’ is played, look at how GDP is defined). The entertainment industry is a full partner. An overwhelming proportion of most people’s time is taken up by working in 3A environments and consuming 3A entertainment and advertising, a lot of economic energy is spent normalising 3A values.

I would suggest this is the biggest barrier to ‘Integralism’ we face. 

The bottom line for business is profit and winning. Winning is maximising your profit and causing your ‘competitors’ to loose by taking their profit (winners, by definition, must have losers). It is not enough to make a modest living. You must aggressively increase your market share.

Indeed, there are individual CEO’s who have introduced 3B and even 4A values into the corporate culture . But the final judgment is profitability. And in these regressive ‘economic rationalist’ times profit is the only judgment.

But 3B and 4A do not place profit above all else. In a 3B society profit must be balanced against ‘right and responsibility’. In a 4A society it is balanced against all other values.

In our rampant 3A business environment people are working longer hours, the rich are getter richer and the poor are getting poorer and unemployed. It is way, way out of balance. The ‘winners’ are gloating and the ‘losers’ are increasingly marginalized and frustrated. And yet the ‘winners’ and ‘winning’ are continuously glorified in the media and in advertising. The population at large still buys this crap. They still dream that one day they will be a winner.

This is dangerous and destructive stuff. Let’s be clear about this. The world cannot sustain this madness. Globalization seems simply to mean that the whole world is now the 3A playing field. Globalization is not yet an example of global 3B, let alone 4A

What is the corporate world doing to alter the situation? Strategically many companies are merely positioning themselves to maximize profit at any turn. If the oil companies run out of petroleum then they diversify and seek to maximize profit some other way. They do not stop doing the very thing that is causing the problem ? the placing of profit above other values. It takes forces outside the corporations to stop them. The irony being that those very corporations have spent billions to weaken these forces. And globalization has simply led to the development of transnational corporations, some of who are larger than some nations ? with no effective global policing. Western nations may have strong laws on pharmaceuticals but this cannot stop drug companies dumping banned drugs in other markets.

How do we turn this situation around? How do we get around the politics, the PR/advertising game, and the sheer economic force of the profit motive? How do we get corporations to take a path that may decrease their profit? How do we get consumers to support companies that take this path, even if their product is necessarily a bit more expensive?

Indeed, there is, and have always been, pockets of 3B and 4A value systems in the corporate jungle. But these are soon dumped if profitability is compromised. Companies will spend big money on this or that seminar (some of which have genuine 3B and 4A ideals), but only if it actually makes the company more profitable (or look good ? a simple case of transparent appropriation). Stephen Covey may have stressed a balanced life in his popular book, but in the end it was all about making people more effective, that is, more productive and profitable. Many of these seminars, including anti-stress seminars, may only be adding more stress and more pressure.

I’m not suggesting that greater efficiency isn’t a good thing. It’s just that the trade off isn’t more leisure time to pursue other goals. One is expected to be more efficient and work longer hours. But how do we define efficiency? Efficient in terms of profit generation certainly, but efficient in terms of the Atman Project ? hardly.

It is imperative that the 3A fanaticism of the corporate world be challenged. Individual companies that are able to incorporate 3B and 4A values should be loudly applauded. But I rather suspect the momentum for change will have to come from outside in the form of greater 3B regulation (in the short term) and consumer demand. Which brings me to the subject of economics.

But before I look at economics I should give an overview of what a 4A corporation might look like. Firstly it will be owned and run by the workers. Many studies have shown that the greatest efficiency arises when the workers have a stake in the company. (There are several models as to how this might work so there is no point in going into specifics). Issues of market share and market competition will be worked out using mediation. The corporation itself will be seen as a citizen with rights and responsibilities. The consumer will decide to support the company on the basis of its contribution to society. Value will be determined on several criteria and not profit alone. The corporation will have as one of its main responsibilities the well being of the whole employee ? not just his or her profit efficiency.

Here’s a final thought. Why not produce a report that grades companies on their ‘integral’ performance? A performance that is based not on profitability but on other factors. Environmental and consumer groups rate companies’ performance, why not the I-I?


Economics is about value. Behind all the jargon of modern economic theory is one simple fact. People will work for and trade or buy what they value.

At the foundation are the core needs, food, shelter, etc. When these are satisfied other things are valued. 

2A values the family/clan. Economic activity is directed to the support of the family/clan.

2B values structure. Economic activity is directed to the support of the patriarchal structure. Loyalty is purchased.

3A values ego enhancement. Status objects ? according to what is ‘in’. Keeping up with the Joneses. And of course advertising pitches directly at this group and industries create fads, the next ‘must have’ thing.

3B values equality and fairness. Economic activity is turned toward redistribution programs such as welfare, medical aid, support programs, the arts, education, etc. 

4A values harmony. Economic activity is directed towards balancing all needs ? all quadrants, all levels.

4B and beyond values transpersonal goals. Economic activity is directed toward the search for Truth. At level 6A all value may be seen to be entirely internal and ‘free’.

Those who return from the highest to dwell in the Heart give what is the most valuable freely.

We cannot, of course separate economics from politics. Everyone is involved in pursuing what he or she values. If they cannot create it themselves or trade or buy it, then they may resort to manipulation and force to get it. 

A balanced society will ensure that people have access to what they value. And here I will suggest that what people really value is deep happiness. They will forgo the trinkets of 3A and the security of 2B if they know they are on the path of true happiness and true ‘value’.

But there can only be a shift in economic direction if people change what they value. At the moment there is an awful lot of energy expended in telling people what they want and need. The advertising industry has mastered the art of ‘appropriating’ any value into a sellable 3A product. Some ads have even ‘appropriated’ sacred spiritual images to sell a ‘thing’ to a niche ? nothing is sacred to the advertising industry (this is a version of flatland where all holons are ‘things’ that can be sold, they have no value other than their marketability). 

The task of the I-I will be to support and encourage ‘authentic’ value.


I will briefly mention three areas in which this work has immediate application, although it can apply across many more areas.

1. One of the implications of my work is a revisioning of Jung, especially Jungian archetypes. Ken has offered a good critique of Jung’s pre/trans fallacy. But this does not invalidate the type of analysis that he pioneered. What Jung lacked was a clear understanding of the spectrum of consciousness. The spectrum is itself an archetype and the classic Jungian archetypes can be seen as distinct levels, ie puer aeternus and seneca. When we revisit his work we see that his ‘collective unconscious’ is really a ‘collective transpersonal consciousness’. The archaic images are in fact ‘prerational translations’ of the various levels that have become embedded (thus creating an unconscious). A new analysis would ‘enable’ archaic translations to transform to the appropriate level of translation. For example, the Great Mother archetype ? representing 2A ? may persist in a person’s consciousness and prevent the realisation of the ‘Maid’ (Athena, Liberty -3B) and the further realisation of Sophia/Shakti (6A). Here we need to understand ‘individuation’ to be the process of progress along the spectrum. Which is the true alchemy. But this is the subject a much longer book…

2. The levels and sub-levels lend themselves to psychometrics. 

3.  Each level has a pathology. In this regard I am in complete agreement with Ken. I would add however, that a particular pathology can be triggered through resonance during the transition through a sub-level. For instance, a level 2 pathology can be re-activated at 3-ii, 4-ii, etc. 

And because my system includes 12 distinct levels corresponding to Ken’s 9 fulcrums, it is obvious I am talking about 3 additional pathologies. 

One area of difference lies at level 3 (fulcrum 5). Here I distinguish between individualism and civilis, which adds an extra dimension to fulcrum 5. Ken would outline a fulcrum 5 pathology as ‘identity crisis’. At 3A this is a straight ‘who am I as an individual?’ at 3B it is ‘who am I as an independent member of the civilis?’ Remembering that 3B participation is not the same as 2B role-playing. 3B has choice, 2B does not. 

Level 5 corresponds to fulcrum 8. Here I would suggest that the pathology of 5A involves a lack of discrimination which leads to the identification with a false or dangerous archetype leading to possession or the idolisation of a ‘negative’ deity. A 5B pathology involves the creation of a ‘divine ego’. The individual has transcended the personal and has absorbed certain deities/archetypes, which gives the person charisma. This charisma is taken to be the result of ‘self’ effort or ‘special grace’ which can lead to an egoic corruption. Many gurus fall into this pathology and mistake prepersonal and personal desires as divine desires. Others can be attracted to such charisma and mistake it for the divine. Black magic carries much of the symbology of this pathology.

Level 6 corresponds to fulcrum 9 and here I note that Ken does not include a nondual pathology. I assume because all duality ceases and causal pathology indicates a failure to reach the nondual. In any case the causal pathology par excellence is the Great Fear, from which Thanatos arises, from which all pathologies arise. A 6A pathology is the failure to consummate the relationship with Shakti, the failure to accept the world as good and evil, as the Virgin and as Kali. It is the pathology of the ascenders, the failure of duality.

Finally, when it comes down to it, there is no distinction between psychology and spirituality. Spirituality is simply the psychological exploration of the transpersonal. An Integral Psychology is therefore also an Integral Spirituality. An ITP would necessarily involve a careful analysis of the individual.


Medicine is not really my area so I have no suggestions, only questions.

I assume an integral medicine will seek to integrate the many modalities into an all quadrant approach. That covers span but what about depth?

Can we have a medicine that covers not only the physical body but the subtle and causal body as well? Or to put it into familiar Hindu terms, medicine for the pranamayakosha, manomayakosha, vijnanamayakosha and anandamayakosha as well as the annamayakosha?

Can disease manifest in higher levels and through failure to detect and cure this disease can this disease then appear at lower levels? For instance, a subtle body disease eventually manifesting as a physical disease. Can this process work in the other direction? Can a serious disease affect higher bodies? How might this be tested?

Are certain physical diseases more prevalent at different levels? Is there an epidemiology of levels?


Level 1. Basic instinct. Polymorphous perversity. Sexuality is seen as the basic drive to procreate. Males are driven to spread their sperm around and females to sort out the best genetic material. This is still a basic drive that underpins sexual searching today.

Level 2. Parenting/Family. Here the sexual drive is directed toward raising families. Rules governing sexual conduct are created and enforced by individuals (internal mores), families and social groups to ensure the continuation of family/ancestral ties.
The male’s drive to spread sperm is curtailed and the female’s search for genetic material is directed. Taboos are enforced. The realm of Freud, Oedipus and Electra. On a personal level sexuality contains the desire to create a continuation of the ego through a child, father to son, mother to daughter. Sex roles are rigidified to ensure the strength of the family. Both males and females are constrained to monogamy. Sex as pleasure is repressed. Sex as duty. Information about sex is restricted. Censorship. Church morality. Sex as sin.

Level 3. Individualism. This has two components 3A and 3B. First thing to say is that most people (the centre of gravity of society) are working out issues of conflict between levels 2 and 3, and issues of conflict between 3A and 3B. Individualism is the discovery of sex as recreation and pleasure. 3A is focused on self-pleasure at the expense of the other. 3B is about mutual self-pleasure. Males have historically oppressively colonised 3A and have maintained a double standard which has kept women at level 2. Feminism has allowed women to break through to 3A. This is still an issue. When women have fully developed 3A, then and only then, will society move towards 3B. Some couples have made this transition and fully experience 3B sexuality. Many couples struggle with 3A and 3B. Either the female has yet to learn 3A or the male selfishly guards his 3A and cannot move to 3B. For example, failure to reach orgasm in women and premature ejaculation in men. Or, the man screws around but expects the wife to be faithful. On a cultural level 3A is the realm of ‘objectification’. Marilyn Monroe, Playboy, etc. In the ‘80’s and ‘90’s there has been more and more of women reaching 3A with its reverse ‘objectification’. Ie, ‘Sex and the City’. Ads with men as sex objects, etc. In time things should balance out and 3B will find greater expression. We are not there yet. 

Level 4. The Centaur. Here gender differentiation begins to lessen. Individuals begin to balance the inner male and female. In lovemaking men and women are able to playfully swap roles. Women relax more and are able to experience female ejaculation. Men are able to experience full body and multiple orgasm (yes, guys, it is possible!). Sexual pleasure also becomes less genitally focussed. Sexual bliss is experienced as a part of a more universal bliss. Taste, sound, sight can be combined to create a more expansive orgasm. People experience orgasmic sensations free of genital stimulation. On a societal level ideas of male and female fuse. The gay movement is helping in this regard. People are prepared to experience their bisexuality. Sexual preference is regarded as irrelevant. Sexuality is openly discussed and considered a proper subject for the arts. The erotic is freed from being crass pornography. Unfortunately, society is nowhere near this level.

Level 5. Subtle Sex. At this level sex is freed from the body. Orgasm is obtained by the melding of subtle energies. Tantric practice can access these realms. Sitting in meditation conjoined, individuals experience a fusing. Sex becomes transpersonal. Sex occurs with deities. Cosmic energies engage the body leaving it a state of bliss.

Level 6. Causal. Bliss as such. Satchidananda. Nondual - beyond Bliss

Each level builds on the previous level. To attain the higher levels requires the removal of inhibitions and repressions created at lower levels. A male cannot attain a full body orgasm until he learns surrender, for example, until he can accept his feminie side and accept the masculine side of the other. There is no point in attempting tantric union if you are inhibited about your body. You cannot experience 3B sex if you are still in love with your father/mother. And so on.

And because you are a Teacher/Guru of whatever description does not mean you have attained sexual understanding or sexual healing. The spiritual path is littered with sexual misconduct. Just as it is unwise to have sex with a child it is unwise to have sex with someone at a lower level of development. It is an unequal relationship. Some gurus have exhibited simple 3A sexuality. Others have initiated disciples into Level 5 sex without the proper development of Level 3 and 4. Sheesh! No wonder the disciples got confused.

Many religions contain rules on sexual conduct that belong to level 2. Celibacy being but one often misused culprit ? leading to a repression of the sexual stream (which becomes a barrier at level 6A). These religious rules repress the development of sexuality and in so doing repress the Atman project.

Sexuality is an expression of eros. Open exploration of sexuality allows the proper progress through the levels. But sexuality can also be easily bent by pathology at any level. Sexuality can therefore be tainted by level 1, 2 and 3 artefacts and so on. Some perversions are simply examples of repressed sexuality attaching itself to other repressed artefacts.

In any case a true ITP must have a healthy appreciation of sexuality. It must allow its proper developmental expression whilst always pointing to the next level.


The concept and mythology of matriarchy belongs to the third harmonic meta-theme 1A, 1B, 2A. The Great Mother, a period of closeness to nature, a gentle pagan paradise ? of course the reality was quite different. But the meta-theme is as much about mythology as it is about reality.

Patriarchy is expressed through the meta-theme 2B, 3A, 3B. The Hero battles the tyranny of the father ? a capricious Zeus, or images from the matriarchal past, serpents, bulls. Man’s skill and intelligence builds civilisation. Perseus builds the Parthenon. A man goes to work and goes to economic war bringing home the spoils to the wife and family. ‘He’ does ‘his’ duty.

But it all ends at 4A, the mysterium coniunctionis. And the beginning of another meta-theme.

At level 1 gender assignment is not strict. It is determined by physicality. Men and women do different work because of biology. But some tribal societies play with the roles. In some tribes the men wear the finery. Some tribes are matrilineal others are not, and there are other variations.

At level 2 gender assignment becomes very fixed. Men and women are locked into specific roles and taboos are strong. The shift from 2A to 2B sees a dramatic shift from feminine values to masculine. At 2B patriarchal values are dominant.

At level 3 the split between male and female is maintained. The male preserves the right to 3A and 3B values. Paradoxically 3B is ruled by the feminine, all the images of this level are feminine, ie, the Statue of Liberty. This is also the image of the 3A youth marrying the ‘Maid’ and settling down. Yet males resist this domesticity, they must enter 3B but still deny the feminine aspect of 3B - a very schizophrenic struggle. But 3B cannot reach its conclusion until women are admitted to 3A and 3B - which is the feminist struggle. Which is where we are at today and which I will comment on at greater length just below.

At level 4 male and female regain equilibrium. To an important extent males need to realise the anima and females the animus and function using both modes as appropriate. At this level the one sex should be able to understand the other as simply reflections of a greater whole

Levels 5 and 6 are about the inner workings of anima and animus, leading to the reunion of Shiva and Shakti.

Men and women today.

I happened to tune into ‘Leeza’ on cable the other day. Susan Faludi was the guest and they were discussing ‘Stiffed’. The show was a mess; no one seemed able to grasp what Faludi was saying. Here was the problem; the guests consisted of a classic middle-class white 3A guy sent to jail for date rape and a gangsta (ex-Crip) who had been caught in a typical 2B-ib violence cycle. One vocal member in the audience was a lawyer who suggested the answer was a return to 2B-iiib values of ‘responsible and disciplined’ masculinity. At various times women in the audience were demanding 3B masculinity, others were advocating ‘noble’ 3A masculinity (still the hero but considerate, still macho but polite in good company, still the ‘bad boy’ but only at the right time), and still others were in denial that men could be victims of the patriarchy as well. A reasonable representation of the issue at large I thought. A confusion of different ideas of what masculinity (and ergo femininity) is.

And that’s why men are confused and women are confused. There are multiple level images of what it is to be a man or a woman.

The way out is for both to transcend the mess and move into level 4. But as yet there is no clear image of what a level 4 masculinity or femininity looks like, no clear ideal to work toward. Feminism is still pushing various models of 3A and 3B femininity. In searching for that identity they have recalled the mythological matriarchal meta-theme. Men are still stuck largely at 3A and 3B, not really seeing the need for change. They are caught reacting to women’s demands that they change, but women are not sending a clear message of what they want. Of course men must themselves see the need to change to level 4. The ‘Men’s Movement’ is a confused return to some imagined past (they cannot embrace the patriarchal meta-theme so they invent a glories level 1 warrior/hunter past) so it has been a regression. I have yet to see a specific male program for entering level 4 masculinity.

I think this is an area that the I-I could help stimulate, ‘Integral Gender Studies’ ? with a specific women’s chapter to address feminism and a men’s chapter to address men’s issues. Naturally, with both in close contact with each other.

And what we are looking for is a move to transcend the mundane marriage of the Hero and the Maiden and to enter the mysterium coniunctionis.

Anima and animus.

The notion of anima and animus arises out of the dynamic tension of the dyads. In my view the conception of anima and animus is a partial understanding. Indeed male and female contain the opposite sex within, but the opposite sex is a projection of the dyad at each level. The anima and animus changes at each level and should not be crudely associated with gender.

For instance at level 5 the dyad is ‘The Fool’ and ‘The Sage’. ‘The Fool’ is associated with Hermes and the ‘Messenger’ image. In one sense it is the Archangel Gabriel, in another it can be an animal (wily coyote). The Fool is ambivalent. One aspect of Hermes is the hermaphrodite; Gabriel is often depicted as being feminine, or at least androgynous. The Sage however is the picture of certainty and discrimination, be they depicted as ‘The Wise Old Man’ or the ‘Wise Old Woman’. Of course, each of these aspects of the dyad will be translated according to particular level and culture. The matriarchal meta-theme will interpret the Sage as a Wise Woman, the patriarchy as the Wise Man (the patriarchal meta-theme has been particularly vicious in suppressing any feminine translation). So here the dyad is not actually about gender but rather about ambivalence and certainty.

At level 6 the ‘Virgin’ represents a state of receptivity that both men and women must be in to receive the Clear Light. It is not that the male and female should react differently at this stage, that there is a separate women’s path and a separate men’s path. The only difference is that women and men translate the experience according to the cultural gender roles assigned to them.


There is a four-stage process that all groups go through. These have been called ‘Forming, Norming, Performing and Mourning’. Each stage must be completed to successfully proceed to the next. Many groups get caught in the ‘Norming’ stage and fail to get into proper ‘Performing’. Some groups fail to recognise the ‘Mourning’ stage leading to a sense of incompletion at the end of a project. These four stages can be seen as a form of the six sub-stages above. So, in terms of group dynamics we can say that any group goes through these stages.

1. Birth. The group forms but within the ‘birth’ lies the seeds of its death. Improper gestation can lead to pathological flaws. So care must be taken to properly ‘midwife’ the group.
2. Stabilisation. The group must be able to both ‘nurture’ its resources as well as carefully ‘structure’ its processes. An overly ‘nurturing’ culture will lead to a kind of self-indulgent comfort. An overly ‘structured’ culture will stifle creativity.
3. Activity. What the group has created must be given wings. The talk must be walked. Each project must stand on its own two feet and be able to find its place within a larger context. Some groups fail because they remain at stage 2 and simply self perpetuate without really producing anything solid and lasting.
4. Mastery. This arrives when the group gains recognition and success. Its projects are considered valuable and the group is regarded as expert in its field. This stage must be coupled with innovation and re-creation.
5. Transition. If the group has been successful it must either re-form itself or allow another form to take its place. Mastery of a project opens the way for a higher level project to arise. The transition phase can either bring ‘confusion’ about future directions or it can bring clarity.
6. Inspiration. A new energy permeates the group and inspires the jump to the next level.

An integral management strategy implies the monitoring of these processes within the group. Understanding that this process affects each individual, each separate project, each sub-group and the larger group itself. Failure to manage these stages can lead to various pathologies within the group.


It is conceivable that some members of the I-I will be at level 3B with a strong cognitive ability at level 4A or 4B (perhaps 5A/5B [archetypal infusion]). Their thinking is at Second Tier but their ‘Heart’ is not. If this energy is strong within the group then the I-I will simply mimic the talk of ‘integralism’ and struggle to fully express the fullness of the integral approach. What mechanisms are in place (or are to be put in place) to monitor this? What processes are envisaged to assist I-I members walk the talk? Is this the role of the Devil’s Advocate? Is there a cognitive bias in the I-I? With so many academics and intellectuals involved will the I-I be too theoretical? 

Can the theory be presented to any given recipient in a compassionate and sensitive manner? Perhaps this needs a greater explanation. I believe an ability of 4A is to be sensitive to the developmental level of the recipient. This allows the message to given appropriately and compassionately. A skill of 4A is to be able to read how the message is being received. If you are familiar with the techniques of NLP then what I am talking about is empathy and the correct reading of response. In NLP you are trained to pick the communication mode of the other (visual, kinetic, auditory, etc) and use that mode to communicate effectively. Similarly, one can pick the developmental level and use the communication mode (using the expanded definition that 80% of communication is non-verbal) appropriate to that level. So what I am saying is that each level uses different communication styles and skills ? which opens another can of worms, does it not? Perhaps the I-I can expand the theory of NLP to include the levels and sub-levels?


Ken touched on this in ‘An Integral Vision’. He says, “Meetings that are run on green principles tend to follow a similar course: everybody is allowed to express his or her feelings, which often takes hours; there is an almost interminable processing of opinions, often reaching no decision or course of action, since a specific course of action would likely exclude somebody.”  Yes, been there, done that. Except I would say that such a meeting is an example of 3B-iv.

Level 1 meetings ? well, sort of an oxymoron really.

Level 2A. Meetings are highly ritualised and each person speaks according to their ranking in the clan/family. The ritual is often as important as the agenda.

Level 2B. Strongly focused on the Patriarch. Opinions are offered to appease or please the whims of the Patriarch. If the Patriarch wants open discussion he actually gets guarded openness. Action occurs outside the meeting as political jostling for position and favour.

Level 3A. The strongest wins, which can be defined as the wittiest, the quickest, the cleverest or the loudest. This does not ensure the ‘best’ opinion is heard. 3A meetings are contests.

Level 3B. Attempts processes to allow all opinions a fair hearing. The downside as Ken has pointed out is the domination of process over content.

Level 4A. The participants have mastered a degree of self-control and only relevant proposals are put forward. There is no egoic need to be heard. Each person listens with respect and genuine interest.

Level 4B. Well, now we are entering the transpersonal which means we have other energies attending.

Level 5. Group attunement to deity energy…need I go further.

So, having outlined the meeting levels let’s examine the sub-levels. These appear as individual behaviour in groups and meetings.

Sub-level i ? exhibits insecurity, lack of confidence and indecisiveness.

Sub-level iia ? exhibits the need for confirmation from the group. Seeks to please.
Sub-level iib ? seeks clarification of the rules, insists on structure and guidelines.

Sub-level iiia ? you guessed it! Grandstanding, excessive talking, drawing attention to his or her opinion. Uses language such as ‘I think’, ‘as I said before’, ‘I really think we should’. The cult of personality.
Sub-level iiib ? is concerned that all voices are heard with the downside that they fail to discriminate between the usefulness of contributions. Not all contributions are equally relevant.

Sub-level iva ? acts as the mediator, whether they are chairing the meeting or not. If they are not officially chairing this can be a distraction. A good mediator however, will ensure all ‘relevant’ opinions are aired.
Sub-level ivb ? keeps a handle on the agenda, including all larger agendas. Is the person likely to comment that the meeting is straying from the purpose of the group.

Sub-level v ? is the person who intuits a new and higher purpose for the group. va can be wrong and can distract the group; vb comes through as a strong ‘charismatic’ leader, even if the charisma is momentary and centred on a single issue.

Sub-level vi ? a numinous energy that pervades the meeting. The ‘Aha!’ moment.

A good CF will operate at iva, a good DA at ivb.

Now a reality check. I expect that most meetings at the I-I will oscillate between 3B and 4A. It depends on the collective centre of gravity of the participants. It doesn’t matter that the issues being discussed are Second Tier cognitive constructs if the meeting itself sinks to a 3A competition of whose is the ‘best’ 2T cognitive construct.

All quadrant

It is to be hoped that the I-I creates the space for all quadrants. The agenda of each meeting may address all quadrants or concentrate on only one. If a meeting concentrates on only one, then other meetings should explore the other quadrants.

In the early 80’s I wrote a paper called ‘Loving Action’ for a proto-integral group called ‘The Down to Earth Movement’. (I say proto-integral because despite being a 3B-iv [green] group it did begin to reach 4A). In that paper I suggested the group needed to balance four areas of concern, which for simplicities sake I aligned to the four elements (just as Spiral Dynamics uses colour). Earth was the material functional concerns, Water was the affective dynamics, Air was the intellectual/theoretical output and Fire was the spiritual/inspirational domain. What we ended up doing was rotating meetings around each element. One week the meeting would focus on practicalities. The next week it would include group exercises to strengthen affective bonding, and so on. The effect was inclusive and strengthening overall.
If the I-I simply becomes an intellectual exercise, a theory discussion group, then it will fail, I believe, to truly express 4A. It will remain a first tier think tank discussing second tier in the abstract.

A 4A meeting will be cognizant of the affective, spiritual, cognitive and volitional sub-currents. It will be aware of the ebb and flow of each energy and be free to break to revitalise the sub-currents. The appropriate action being whatever works. So maybe the group goes for a silent walk or uses well-tried group exercises…


It has been interesting writing this paper. As I addressed each issue I revealed ways to use my model that I had not previously considered. It was a journey of discovery.

I hope it has been clear. Certainly it is only an introduction.

And as I said in the introduction I hope it adds to the discussion. I hope you have found that it adds useful detail to Ken’s fulcrum system and clarifies the meme system.

I look forward to having the opportunity to expand these ideas into the various domains of the I-I.

© Ray Harris, June, 2000

Created 28/9/02