In Ken’s IMP we have the different zones with their corresponding methodologies. One zone’s methodologies cannot be applied and reduced to anothers, as they are under different paradigm enactments. Can the same hold true for education and business? It seems education is a public good that should be provided free of business considerations, for there might be conflicts of interest, lack of availability to all, etc. Is making education into a business mixing methodologies and purposes against IMP principles?
For example, all State Universities have conflict of interest (COI) policies. An excerpted sample from Carnegie Mellon follows:
“The university’s principal missions are the education of students and the generation and dissemination of knowledge. In pursuit of these missions, or as a natural outgrowth of such activities, faculty and staff often become involved in outside activities. While extramural activities benefit the university and are generally encouraged, in some circumstances such activities give rise to conflicts of interest or commitment.”
But what if we combine education with a business where there are now two missions: education and profit. This is not to say there’s anything inherently wrong with business or profit, but should it be combined with education? Are there cross-purposes? Is not that recognition indeed why State University COI policies are created in the first place? Can such cross-purposed be overcome and how?
I think this is apples and oranges. Not business vs. education, but either/both vs. IMP. IMP makes distinctions in the way phenomena are investigated according to the quadrant and inside/outside position. Both business and education can be examined in a variety of ways by IMP. Neither is restricted to a particular zone.
Not to say there aren’t arguments against mixing business and education, but not on the basis of IMP in this sense.
I agree that business and educational differences are not based on IMP’s methodological zones. I’m just trying to draw an analogy that education and business are of different categories with different purposes and objectives as there are differences in zone approachs in IMP. So the underlying theme is category error. AND could a broader, more inclusive definition of IMP involve such category errors, not just methodological zone issues?
For example, actual perspectives are much larger than single zone methodologies. As Andy noted such broad categorical perspectices as education and business can and do embrace methodogies from many if not all of the zones. In a sense such broad perspectives are holonic, i.e., these perspectives have AQAL within them. And as such can there be holonic category errors?
Another example, as you noted earlier Andy, is that Ken reduces meditation to the UL inside perspective, whereas meditators have complete holonic perspectives that go beyond this zone. Hence they most certainly did intepret meditation using the other zones.
Mark goes into detail how this zone-perspective conflation gets muddled in his Through AQAL Eyes series, particulary Part VII. He says: “In reality, the various holonic perspectives are associated with complete holons and not with quadrants.” Or zones or their methodologies.
So back to the question, is mixing business with education a category (or holonic) error?
It might depend on what you mean by business. Some schools have accepted funds from specific businesses, in return for offering them free advertising–billboards, posters, even movies shown in classrooms promoting the products of that business. I’m very much opposed to this, but with schools chronically underfunded, the temptation is huge. This has been going on higher education, moreover, for a long time. Thus the drug companies openly woo each graduating class of MDs, and now, of course, the line between basic scientific research and company-funded projects has blurred with so many scientists starting their own companies.
On the other hand, if you mean, should general business ideas be taught in schools at a very early level, that is more arguable. Traditionally, most students in America, at least, have graduated without any knowledge of money management (that was certainly my case). As we get older, have families, accumulate money, and so on, we have to learn how to deal with money (unless we want to give it all away and go wandering as a poor sage. But I would still recommend putting the money in a trust, so that if that phase of your life passes, you don’t have to start over from scratch!). Now that you raise the issue, I think maybe schools should embrace this subject. While they’re at it, they could educate the young about the seeing money as a way of fulfilling basic needs, so there is more time and energy for pursuing what I would call higher, creative needs. Certainly a chance to take on the entire materialistic eithos.
For example, let’s look at the conflict of interest section of Integral Institute’s Submission Process and Requirements for the AQAL Journal. Why do these concerns arise? And do similar concerns arise when one’s business is selling education to business who pays to get what they want?
http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/files/3661/download.aspx.
· Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest may exist when an author (or the author’s institution or employer) has financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence the author’s decisions, work, or manuscript. Authors are required to report potential conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests relevant to the subject of their manuscript.
· Authors are required to report detailed information regarding all financial and material support for any research and work, including but not limited to grant support, funding sources, and provision of equipment and supplies.
· Authors are expected to provide information about any relevant financial interests or financial conflicts within the past 5 years and for the foreseeable future, particularly those present at the time any research was conducted.
· If authors are uncertain about what might constitute a potential financial conflict of interest, they should err on the side of full disclosure and contact the AQAL Executive Editor if they have questions or concerns.
· For all accepted manuscripts, each author’s disclosures of relevant financial interests will be published. Decisions about whether financial information provided by authors should be published are usually straightforward. Although editors are willing to discuss disclosure of specific financial information with authors, AQAL Journal’s policy is one of
complete disclosure of all relevant financial interests.
· The policy requesting disclosure of conflicts of interest applies for all manuscript submissions.
As Ken said in Integral Spiritiuality talking about Spiral Dynaimics:
“At the same time, and from the start, SD has not incorporated a single criticism, from me or anybody else that I can tell, largely, in my opinion, because it is not possible to have an academic discussion with individuals whose economic livelihood depends upon one model being the only correct model.” p. 105
Yeah, but, Edward – if it can’t be used to make money what bloody use is it?
Of course I’m kidding but this is precisely the conflict happening in Australian education at the moment. There is a very real struggle between corporatist pragmatists who want education to provide skills they can use to create profit and the ‘purists’ who believe education is a good in its own right. There has been a decline in respect for the pure subjects and an increase in students wanting to do practical subjects.
This is part of the overall decline in those things that are good in their own right as the needs of corporate interests become dominant.
Interesting to note Ken’s comment. Something I and others were saying a few years ago. About time.
““At the same time, and from the start, SD has not incorporated a single criticism, from me or anybody else that I can tell, largely, in my opinion, because it is not possible to have an academic discussion with individuals whose economic livelihood depends upon one model being the only correct model.”
Are you sure this wasn’t a typo? I think “SD” should have read “KW”.
To connect a few dots, can the same be applied to Ken/I-I’s model as was done with SD’s model? Is there a large financial interest in Ken being right? Granted Ken takes criticism to expand his model, but that criticism must first pass his own muster to be accepted. Is his own criteria of acceptance influenced by building his business or other personal interests? Is there a system in place at I-I beyond Ken’s purview to decide if this is the case?
“Is there a large financial interest in Ken being right?”
Edward, you can’t possibly be as naive as that question sounds. Of course there is a financial interest. If the 4Q model were abandoned, the entire underpinning of I-I would collapse; everything is built around that model. Most theorists are attached to some extent to their models, Ken at least as much as others. But factors like tenure and work diversification (i.e., teaching as well as research) lessen the financial impact of being seriously challenged, or even discredited, in academia. But because Ken is not an academic, makes a living by writing books for commerical publishers, and now because his I-I institute has ambitious goals that require heavy funding, he is much more vulnerable than the typical theorist.
I don’t think Ken cares much about money, except as a means to promoting I-I. I don’t think he has much interest in personal wealth. But he obviously wants to see his ideas have a wider influence, and he clearly has not been satisfied with the extent of influence his books created. Promotion costs money.
But the usual university has a diversity of subjects and representative perspectives. As Andy notes, the AQAL model is THE integral perspective at Integral University. Granted its a meta-model that integrates the various subjects in the usual university, but is it THE integral meta-model? Obviously there are other contenders, and other variations on Ken’s version. So why are they not represented at IU? Or is it more of a trademarked product of business and not really a university education? My point is that the holonic categories of business and education are mixed contrary to some of those very “integral” principles.
And by the way Andy, my questions are not so much naive as rhetorical to elicit others, like yourself, to provide the answers I imply by the questions so that I don’t have to spell everything out myself. Give me some freaking credit man.
If I gave you credit, Edward, that would be conducting business on an educational site. I also refuse to accept cash, at least until someone here wants to offer me some.
“My point is that the holonic categories of business and education are mixed contrary to some of those very “integral†principles.”
What integral principles. While avoiding even potential conflict of interest is certainly a very established principle in Western society, I’m not sure that there’s anything in Wilber’s system that precludes it. As I have noted in this forum before, Wilber doesn’t say a lot about ethics. Indeed, comprehensive systems like this may be particularly susceptible to the problem, because they attempt to integrate everything. Academic knowledge in Wilber’s view is not, for the individual, something that should be compartmentalized, but needs to be integrated with other aspects of life.
Integrating everything is not the same as conflating everything. I pointed out that Wilber does indeed recognize, at least with his quadrants and zones, that different methodologies and categories cannot be reduced to each other, even by an integral meta-perspective. And he and I-I recognize ethics, as the section of the standards for conflict of interest I quoted are under the heading of “ethics.” I agree that more needs to be said on the subject of so-called “integral” ethics, a point I made strongly in my essay Giving Guns to Children.
And I argue that with the implications of Ken’s own system, expanded by Mark’s writings, might indeed violate some key integral principles, like conflating holonic perspectives. Granted I have yet to make a strong case for it, but that’s why I created this topic, to explore it and see if it can be done.
Hi Edward and Andy,
Well, perhaps we could take a closer look at the ethics question. I argue that the integral movement has been dodging the question because it involves taking a stand on what is right and wrong.
Ken takes a strong stand against relativism and argues that there are universals. Well, what are they and how can they be applied in practical ethics?
I also argue there is such a thing as integral relativism – a kind of laziness that shrugs its shoulders and says every view is partially right. Yeah, but which part?
In my view the academic model, when applied strictly, has great value. I also think that the corporate world is bereft of agreed ethics. It is essentially corrupt and corrupting. There are highly ethical people involved in business but the process itself is corrupting. Competition rewards unethical behaviour, whatever it takes…
The problem with I-I is that in its early days it was influenced by people who saw it as a ‘technology’ that could be marketed through workshops and seminars. Don Beck’s involvement helped solidify this model. It now seems as if other voices have whispered in Ken’s ear and he’s distancing himself from the SD model.
AS far as I’m concerned Don Beck has taken a system he learnt within the academic context and after leaving the academy tweaked it so that he could turn Graves’ material into a propriatorial system. He is now outside the peer review process. And as far as I can tell Don has corrupted the original Graves material. Early on he used it in his sports coaching consultancy where he deliberately edited the full spectrum to teach only those vMemes that helped his contracted team to win (red, blue, orange). As far as I’m concerned this breached the Prime Directive.
Andy Smith Says:
September 15th, 2006 at 7:56 am
“(Ken)…obviously wants to see his ideas have a wider influence, and he clearly has not been satisfied with the extent of influence his books created.”
That’s interesting, because his books have been very influential. What further influence could he possibly want? Academic respect? Well, he’ll have to learn to cite and understand his sources properly then, as well as handle peer-review criticism without launching into “Earpy”-style diatribes. Some sort of Church of AQAL, with himself as the high priest? Surely Wilber isn’t that naive or megalomanic! (well, Geoff Falk would argue that he is). Getting John and Jane Bloggs enthusiastic about integral lifestyle, integral crosstraining, integral wilberian theory, integral politics, etc etc etc? Then he doesn’t understand that the average person isn’t interested in these “wierd” new age ideas.
In short, KW has attained the maximum influence he is likely to have, and probably did so about 10-15 years ago, at which level he has been at a plateau ever since. I also think that Wilber-V is likely to have a lot less influence than Wilber-IV, because it’s crypto-physicalism and arrogant claim of superiority over all previous spiritual teachings will most likely put off many people who would otherwise be interested in a Wilber-I through IV approach
From “It’s Not the Technology That Worries Me,” The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina:
technologysource.org/article/its_not_the_technology_that_worries_me/
“…the corporate model is no more obviously suited to higher education than the private non-profit or government model is suited to business. Everyone knows the perils of a category error. To apply terms that work with precision in business to a non-business is nonsensical unless one has shown that the business and the non-business have relevant characteristics in common.”
From “Metaphors in/of Education”
http://metaphor.uea.ac.uk/Lukes-Metaphors&Education.ppt
“It was Napoleon who once famously described Britain as a nation of shopkeepers. Successive governments, since the premiership of Mrs Thatcher, have accepted this grocer-like view and attempted to turn every social institution into a commercial enterprise.†… “This is a classic example of what philosophers call ‘category error’, the mistake of discussing – or in this case planning – one area of activity in the language and terms and with the concepts which are appropriate to another. … It is a seriously fallacious form of reasoning.†(Kelly, 2004)
Well, there are several ways that education and business can be mixed. Which one(s) are we talking about?
1) running education like running a business (a category error according to the previous quote).
2) allowing corporate advertising in schools in return for corporate support.
3) making an understanding of basic business principles/practices part of the standard curriculum in general education.
On a political note, the US government, which is supposed to be for the public welfare, is infected with corporate influence (aka money), which is for private welfare. Talk about category errors of the highest magnitute. Even in integral theory and practice we maintain these separate and independent categories with their own set of purposes, methods, etc. We integrate them not by conflating them but by organizing them to work together within their proper area of concern.
Side bar: Ken and I-I have every right to market his trademarked AQAL approach as a business. But let’s just not conflate it with a university education. And no, not even some “higher,” “integral” intepretation gets to violate this category error, the latter of which is still fully intact in integral theory.
Andy, I’d say your #3 is completely in line with the purpose of a general university education, that is, to provide a diversity of perspectives and methods for dealing with the world. Learning good business practices is one of those methods in an “integral” education.
For that matter learning the trademarked AQAL system should be included in such an education, and one can elect to take that course from the menu. But the AQAL model itself should not pretend to be the entire menu, so to speak.
As to #1, naturally there are aspects of running a business that apply to running a university, like purchasing equipment, hiring staff, cost containment, etc. But the underlying purpose is not the same, hence they are not entirely the same and it is a category error to apply all aspects of one to the other.
I agree with you that #2 is a conflict of interest that allows undue influence and access of business into education, hence a category error.
Regarding holonic perspectives, I agree with Mark that a holon is not a thing but an intepretive lens that can be focused upon anything, as long as we clearly define the boundaries of that focus. Ken has noted that there are certain natural perspectives as reflected in the way we use pronouns, and Mark has elaborated on that. We can also draw holonic boundaries around larger categories like education and business. The latter too are natural distinctions that arose from the same process as the distinction between pronouns, i.e., critical awareness. There is nothing in integral theory that says we cannot extend a holonic-lens boundary to such broad categories. I’d say such uses are implicit to the theory.
And again, it is not that one form of holon is right and the other wrong, but they have their own distinct quadratic and zone formulations. So we can inquire as to how they relate to one another, how we might integrate them into a larger meta-context, but we still don’t conflate them. I’ve been focusing on the interiors of such holonic perspectives, their purpose or regnant nexus, but I think the same would apply to the exterior quadrant-zone aspects of such different holons as well.
Regarding ethics Ray, we might be assuming that there is one overall ethical code or standard that applies to both business and education. And this might arise from a Theory of Everything (TOE) versus a Theory for Anything (TFA), the distinctions that Mark made in the AQAL Eyes series. If we use the TFA and apply holonic boundaries around anything instead of everything we get each holon expressing as 4 quadrants instead of holons expressing in each quadrant. I made this conflationary category error myself in Giving Guns to Children when I tried to apply the same general ethical code to both education and business.
But if we look at education and business as separate holons, each with its own AQAL expression, the both would have their own ethical considerations expressed in their own ethical codes of conduct. Now we might say that overall the general altitute of educational ethics is higher than that of business, but perhaps we should not conflate the same ethical standards to both?
What is business for, itself? Or is it part of society? I reject that business is a separate holon. It is one institution of society amongst others. Here we need to go back to what I call integral political economy. The development of society from archaic hunter-gatherer bands to sophisticated nation-states requires the creation of surplus (wealth). This is not just material surplus but surplus converted to a wealth of ideas and opportunities.
What business does is arrogate to itself a dominant position – the whole ’shopkeepers’ mentality. But business needs society, it needs consumers, it needs infrastructure and it needs ideas/creativity.
The relationship between business and education ought to be that education provides knowledge which can be used by business. This must be free and open, if for the simple reason that no-one knows ahead of time what use a new discovery has. There are multiple examples of this. In fact the truly creative people do not do it for money, they do it because they are propelled to. The money arrives ‘after’ a use has been discovered. This is what pure research is supposed to be.
I have no objection to business playing a part in education but I do have a problem with business manipulating education away from pure research toward mere training.
For me the ethical bottom line is the Prime Directive. An open education system best allows the potential for the highest development for the most people. The side-effect is greater creativity and a ’surplus’ of ideas that benefit people.
Business is risk averse. When conservative corporatists get a hold of education they tend to narrow its focus toward technical training and meeting short term goals.
Here’s a few excerpts from Mark’s “Another Way of Putting It” at Integral World. From his perspective I’m not sure if my education and business holons are social holons or mediating holons.
“Another implication is that the four quadrants refer to the four quadrants of each holon and actually have nothing to do with perspectives. Every perspective has four quadrants. And every perspective is a holon its own right.”
“The mediating holon includes all those words, gestures, behaviours, symbols, books, games, computers and artefacts that are used to mediate our relationship.”
“And so we enter into the world of what I call integral holonomics – where the representational, modelling, analytical, theory building and theory testing capacities of integral approaches are only limited by our imaginations.”
I might be stretching that education or business is a “holon.” I’m just engaging in creative speculation at this point, which might end up being dust in the wind. But one thing is established: education and business are separate categories of ideas and that a good case can be made for category errors in conflating the two.
I’m not up to speed with Mark’s recent writing on holon theory – mediating holons, hmmm. You can get to a point of redefining and including such that holon gets to mean anything and everything – not very useful.
But yes, they are separate domains with different aims. I could go into a much longer discussion of how the business agenda corrupts the education agenda. This is a very fresh issue in Australia. Not just in terms of business funding research but in terms of business models being used to run universities. The conservative federal government has been pushing labour reform, trying to destroy unions in favour of individual workplace agreements. It has said it will refuse federal funding to universities that do not put their staff on individual contracts. Over the years of such pressure this has meant less security for academic and teaching staff and other cut backs have increased the teaching load.
But it goes further than that. Conservative corporatist pressure has seen the federal government enter academic debate with the aim of silencing any anti-corporatist criticism from within the academy. The federal education minister now has veto over research grants. Previously an academic panel made the decisions, now the minister can veto their recommendations. This mostly affects the humanities and research into areas that might prove government policy wrong. It also means the minister can direct funding to areas of particular benefit to the corporatists.
This is not just about corporatism taking over universities but about corporatism taking over every-bloody-thing. It’s about assuming that the goal of the whole of society is to maximize corporate profits.