Tag: integral health

Posted on

Erich Fromm interviewed by Mike Wallace, 1958

[Crossposted @ Integral Health Resources.com]

The Society for Humanistic Psychology blog posted the following video of Erich Fromm being interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1958. [A complete transcript of the interview can be accessed via the Harry Ransom Center (University of Texas at Austin) website.] A couple of things stuck me as I watched this fascinating exchange. First, Fromm’s essential critique of modern society is as relevant today as it was fifty years ago. Second, I find it difficult to imagine any news program today featuring this kind of in-depth, philosophical discussion. We’ll see weeks of non-stop news coverage on say, the death of Michael Jackson, but when it comes to exchanging thoughtful perspectives on our most pressing societal problems, we’re offered little more than partisan sound-bites and propaganda disguised as journalism.

The program below is introduced as a “Special series discussing the problems of survival and freedom in America”. Mike Wallace begins by saying that his aim in talking with Fromm is to “try to measure the impact of our free society on us as individuals. Whether we’re as happy as we like to think we are, or as free to think and to feel.” Imagine Bill O’Reilly or Brian Williams or Katie Couric devoting an entire program to such questions! These kinds of questions are incredibly important, yet conspicuously absent from public discourse. In terms of Integral Health, it is simply impossible to understand individual health and happiness without understanding the way our individual lives are shaped by societal forces.

During the discussion, Fromm talks about the “marketing orientation” of the American citizenry of the 1950s: “Our main way of relating ourselves to others is like things relate themselves to things on the market. We want to exchange our own personality – or as one says sometimes, our ‘personality package’ – for something.” Fromm (I’m paraphrasing here) goes on to describe modern social relationships as shallow, with real intimacy being hidden by a superficial friendliness. He suggests that the average American is only genuinely concerned with private affairs, never losing sleep about the pressing societal problems which threaten our very existence. He says the average person prefers to leave such things to specialists in the government, talking about problems shown on the news with friends and coworkers, but with no more sense of urgency than one would talk about a car that needs repair. Fromm asserts that, despite our apparent preoccupation with it, true love remains a relatively rare phenomenon. He laments that it is all too common that the most important things we talk about on Sundays are the very things that we pay relatively little attention to in our everyday lives. Again, he’s talking about life in the 1950s, but it’s easy to be struck with how little things have changed, at least in many respects. Like when he says: “I think our danger is that we talk one thing, and we feel and act another thing. I mean, we talk about equality, about happiness, about freedom – and about the spiritual values of religion, and about God – and in our daily life, we act on principles which are different, and partly contradictory.”

Speaking of the “religious renaissance” he was seeing back then, Fromm describes it as “the greatest danger that true religious experience has ever been confronted with.” He goes on to say that man today, being concerned with production and consumption as ends in themselves, has very little energy and time to devote himself to the true religious experience, which Fromm defines (in response to Wallace) as “the capacity to feel deep love and oneness with others and nature.” Wallace also asks Fromm to define “happiness” and “democracy”. Regarding happiness, Fromm offers: “People today seem to define happiness as the experience of unlimited consumption. Happiness should be something which results from the creative, genuine, intense relatedness – awareness, responsiveness, to everything in life – to man, to nature.” Regarding democracy he says: “Democracy once meant an organizational society and a state, in which the individual citizen is – feels – responsible, and acts responsibly, and participates in decision-making. I think what democracy means today, in reality, is to a large extent, manipulated consent – not forced consent, manipulated consent -and manipulated more and more with the help of Madison Avenue.” Fromm adds, “We have a mass man, a mass bureaucracy, a manipulation of everyone to act smoothly but with an illusion that he follows his own decisions and opinions.”

Fromm gives Wallace–and the people watching this ABC News Special–a lot to chew on. Again, I think many of Fromm’s concerns and observations are just as relevant today as they were fifty years ago. Without further ado:



Posted on

Has Ken Wilber jumped the shark?

Yeah, I know, that’s a pretty lame Wilber/Fonzie photoshop job, but I couldn’t resist. And I want to make clear right from the start that Ken Wilber has authored several of my all-time favorite nonfiction books. I dig a lot of his work and use his “four quadrants” to frame my own understanding of Integral Health. I remember reading Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality and thinking to myself, “This guy is the shit!” Yesterday, however, after reading Wilber’s latest blog post (A Narrative on Guruji), I couldn’t help but think, “This guy has lost his shit!”

The first thing that struck me as odd about Wilber’s post was the style of presentation, which was riddled with rambling redundancies, poor reasoning, and flat-out bad writing. This from a man capable of exquisitely lucid prose. Now, maybe he meant it as an off-the-cuff type of thing and I’m being a bit unfair, but this is a guy who rarely posts on his own blog, so I was surprised he’d go on record with this scattered post. Then there’s the content of the post, which is a strong public endorsement of a spiritual teacher named Mahendra Kumar Trivedi. From Wilber:

What I am claiming—and supporting—is that Guruji’s capacity to conduct and transmit universal spiritual energy (or “shakti”) is utterly remarkable, as proven by scientific experiments themselves. It is these direct, specific, scientific experiments and their results that I am reporting, and on which I am basing my endorsement. This is a scientific conclusion, not a spiritual one (although, of course, you are free to make those as well—but I am reporting the direct science, which is indeed astonishing).

[…] To put it briefly, Mr. Trivedi has an empirically demonstrated capacity to alter the atomic and molecular structure of phenomena simply through his conscious intentionality. The number of experiments done on this capacity (known in Sanskrit as shaktipat) that have been done in coordination with Mr. Trivedi is quite extraordinary—so far, over 5,000 empirical studies by universities and scientific research organizations all over the world (including the world renowned materials scientist Dr. Rustum Roy at the University of Pennsylvania).

Wilber takes great pains to stress that he’s basing his endorsement of “Guruji” (as he is affectionately known) on SCIENCE: “the reason is based entirely on direct, specific, scientific evidence. This evidence is so astonishing that I myself have never seen anything quite like it.” In fact, Wilber drives this point home at least a dozen times in his fairly short post. When I went to Trivedi’s website to check out the evidence, I found plenty of information and claims, but not a mention of peer-reviewed evaluation of results or independent research corroborating the findings. I would expect a scientifically-based endorsement to have higher standards, although as a non-scientist myself, I confess I am not qualified to pass authoritative judgment on such matters. Wilber seems to have a lot of confidence in the conclusions of one researcher in particular, the “world renowned” Dr. Rustum Roy. It should be noted, however, that Roy, like his associate Deepak Chopra, is not exactly lauded by mainstream scientists, as I’ve seen his name (perhaps unfairly) paired with words like “woo” and “pseudoscience” on more than one occasion (for instance here and here). Of course, there are plenty of science-based crusaders out there who would tear me apart, along with many of my intellectual heroes, so that kind of criticism in-and-of-itself doesn’t put Wilber’s endorsement on shaky ground. Rather, it’s Wilber’s credulity and weak justifications that have me scratching my head, and even cringing in embarrassment at times.

For example, Wilber offers this: “Especially if you see photos of these results, you can’t help but be struck by the rather intense capacity for this transmission demonstrated by Guruji.” Really? Photos on the internet? Wilber seems to be all-too-willing to validate anything and everything that supports his own view of the universe. We all do this, of course, but we’re not all hailed as “the Einstein of consciousness research.” And Wilber seems also to be all-to-willing to indulge in highly speculative conclusions based solely on the alleged abilities of a single man:

Several of us have been predicting for some time that a significant new transformation is beginning on Earth at this time. Various psychological tests and sociological indications tend to show that there is the beginning emergence of a new type of consciousness. […] It might be that the Energy that Guruji is working with is the energetic support or correlate of this new Integral transformation. And that’s really pretty extraordinary. It’s pretty amazing that that might be happening.

And:

The point is that various psychological and sociological tests have verified the emergence of a new level of consciousness-again, one generally referred to as ” integrative” or ” integral.” In other words, this is not just some hair-brained academic theory, but a reality disclosed by specific testing. What hasn’t been disclosed is the new Life Energy that would be expected to underlie this new level of consciousness (what Integral Theory calls the Upper-Right quadrant aspect that would correlate with the newly emergent Upper-Left quadrant reality). But it is this new Integral energy that seems to be what Guruji is transmitting.

Notice Wilber’s highly dubious claim that “various psychological and sociological tests” have verified his theory of integral consciousness to the point of disclosing it as reality. It’s no wonder, based on that kind of flimsy reasoning, that Wilber would so readily endorse Trivedi as the real deal. The fact that a real scientist (Rustum Roy) affiliated with real universities supports Wilber’s thinking seems to be all the scientific confirmation Wilber needs to (tentatively) verify as real and true another brick in his Great Wall of Integral Theory. Throw in a little circular logic, and there’s nothing likely to keep Wilber from moving from tentative acceptance to total acceptance in the near future:

Guruji says that individuals have to be open for this, and I think that’s exactly right. You can’t force people to be free. It’s a choice they have to make, if they have evolved enough. Not even God can force a human to be free. That would just defeat the whole purpose. So whatever percentage of people are actually open to this-ten percent, twenty percent, fifty percent, whatever-we’ll find out. But if there is a really strong doubt and negativity, then it doesn’t surprise me that this transmission doesn’t have a chance. So right now we’re waiting to see the percentage of people that can become open to this type of transmission.

This is becoming an all-too-familiar gambit in Integral circles, that you have to be “evolved enough” to really grasp the truth of what Wilber claims. Furthermore, if Trivedi’s super spiritual transmission can’t transmit through doubt and negativity, then why even bother putting it through the rigors of scientific confirmation and peer review? Too bad we can’t all be like the open-minded plants that Trivedi has blessed into realignment with the new Earth Energy!

It’s not as if Trivedi is the first person on the block with supposed mystical super powers. What about John of God and Sathya Sai Baba? Many claims have been made, yet James Randi’s One Million Dollar Prize
 for “anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event” has yet to be claimed.

Ken Wilber has contributed much to the advancement of integral, integrative, holistic approaches to life’s most intractable challenges. I don’t want to diminish that fact with this rant. But I’m frustrated. I’ve been trying to make the case to mainstream mental health professionals and health educators that Wilber’s work should be taken seriously. This is already an uphill battle, given the New Age label that is often associated with Wilber’s writing and his institute. But add to that the whole Wyatt Earpy episode, Wilber’s endorsements of ethically suspect individuals like Andrew Cohen and Marc Gafni, and now this latest Guruji head-scratcher, and I’m not sure I should be taking him seriously anymore.

Earth (Energy) to Ken: Please start making sense again!

Posted on

Integral Health?

[This is cross-posted @ IntegralHealthResources.com]

Question: What does “Integral” mean? What’s the difference between integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, wellness, etc.?

My answer: As I use the term, “integral” refers to any approach that brings together multiple perspectives in an effort to address the multiple dimensions of human life. In this sense, the term “integral” is basically interchangeable with “integrative” and “holistic.” As a matter of personal preference, I like the term “integral.” I graduated from the California Institute of Integral Studies, which is grounded in the Integral Psychology of founder Haridas Chaudhuri, and I’m also a big fan of Ken Wilber’s “four quadrant” integral theory.

In general, however, the terms integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, and wellness are all meant to convey “whole person” approaches to health and healing, as opposed to the disease-focused system associated with conventional medicine.

Keeping in mind that most, if not all, healthcare practitioners—whether in conventional settings or integrative health centers—would claim to be treating the “whole person,” I agree with the following distinctions Dr. Elliott Dacher makes between conventional, complimentary and alternative, integrative, and integral approaches:

[Article featured on Davi Nikent.org]

The evolution of medicine in modern times has been from allopathic or conventional, to alternative and complementary, to integrative and now to integral.

These can be defined as:

Conventional: The traditional approaches of medical science.
Alternative and Complementary: Healing approaches outside of the mainstream of western medical science.
Integrative: The merging of conventional, alternative and complementary approaches under a single “umbrella” of care.

Each of the preceding approaches, as they are currently and predominantly practiced in western culture, primarily focus on the biological or physical aspects of healing, emphasizing the role of professionals and their specialties, remedies and therapies in the treatment of physical disturbances. It is the recognition that these approaches have not addressed the whole person and therefore limit what can be achieved in health and healing that has driven the development of an integral approach.

Integral: The expansion of the health and healing process to address the entire range of the human experience: biological, psychospiritual, relational and cultural. All are seen to contribute to the disease process and to health and healing. The expansion of consciousness, the inner aspect of healing, rather than the outer “medical tool kit” is a central aspect of the integral approach. The aim of integral medicine is broader than all preceding approaches to health and healing. The aim is to gain freedom from suffering and to experience the flourishing of the full potential of our humanity – the natural arising of an inner peace, wholeness, love, compassion and joy – that can sustain itself throughout the life cycle irrespective of the presence or absence of disease. This can only be achieved with an integral approach to healing that considers all aspects of the human condition.

From the Practitioner’s Perspective:

As a conventional practitioner I would approach the individual from the perspective of the physical symptom and disease, limiting my diagnosis and treatment options to those of western science. As an alternative and complementary practitioner I would approach the physical symptom and disease from the perspective of my particular training (acupuncture, chiropractic, nutritional, etc.) and formulate a diagnostic and treatment plan in relationship to my specialty. An integrative care approach combines conventional and alternative approaches to offer a broader spectrum of choices when treating the individual’s symptoms or disease. As an Integral practitioner I would approach the patient first looking at their entire life circumstance – biological, psychosocial, relational and cultural – focusing on the whole person rather than the disease, symptom, or my particular specialty, my diagnosis would include concerns in each of these areas of life and my healing plan would cover the broad range of needs and possible approaches necessary to move towards a larger health of the whole person. Because as an integral practitioner my vision is broader so also is that which can be achieved, a human flourishing vs. a physical healing. As an integral healer I must be in a transformative process myself as the driving force for a larger healing is not merely biological knowledge but an understanding and growth into a larger consciousness. An expanding consciousness is a key ingredient of an integral process.

Elliott Dacher, MD
March 2005