How Big is Our Umbrella                

                               by Ken Wilber
                                      
   "Noetics"-consciousness, interiority, and awareness in the broadest
   sense-and "science"-empirical investigation based on reproducible
   evidence-are arguably the two most important branches of the human
   knowledge quest. The attempt to bring these often alien parties
   together into some sort of mutually enriching dialogue has motivated
   the Noetic Sciences Review from the very beginning. It is therefore
   altogether fitting, on this tenth anniversary, that we come together
   to reflect on this dialogue. How is the integral quest coming along?
   How close are we to what David Chalmers has called "a theory of
   everything"-that is, a theory that would unite the hard realities of
   empirical science with the soft but irrefutable realities of the
   interior and conscious domain?
   
                            PIECES OF THE PUZZLE
                                      
   Looking over the field of consciousness studies in the last decade, it
   becomes obvious that we have our task cut out for us. There are now at
   least a dozen major schools of consciousness studies and, far from
   moving toward a convergence, they are often opposed, contradictory,
   and dramatically conflicting. Here is a very brief summary of some of
   the major contenders:
   
   1. COGNITIVE SCIENCE, which tends to view consciousness as anchored in
   functional schemas of the brain-mind, either in a simple
   representational fashion or in the more complex emergent-connectionist
   models, which view consciousness in terms of hierarchically integrated
   networks. The emergent-connectionist is perhaps the dominant model of
   cognitive science at this point, and is nicely summarized in Alwyn
   Scott's Stairway to the Mind, the "stairway" being the hierarchy of
   emergent factors culminating in consciousness.
   
   2. INTROSPECTIONISM maintains that consciousness is best understood in
   terms of intentionality, anchored in first-person accounts-the
   inspection and interpretation of immediate awareness and lived
   experience. This approach contrasts sharply with third-person
   (objective) accounts, no matter how "scientific" they might appear.
   Without denying their significant differences, this broad category
   includes everything from philosophical intentionality to introspective
   psychology, existentialism, and phenomenology.
   
   3. NEUROPSYCHOLOGY views consciousness as anchored in neural systems,
   neurotransmitters, and organic brain mechanisms. Unlike cognitive
   science, which is often based on computer science and is consequently
   vague about how consciousness is actually related to organic brain
   structures, neuropsychology is a more biologically based approach.
   Anchored in neuroscience more than computer science, it views
   consciousness as intrinsically residing in organic neural systems of
   sufficient complexity.
   
   4. INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOTHERAPY uses introspective and interpretive
   psychology to treat distressing symptoms and emotional problems; it
   thus tends to view consciousness as primarily anchored in an
   individual organism's adaptive capacities. Most major schools of
   psychotherapy embody a theory of consciousness precisely because they
   must account for a human being's need to create meaning and
   significance, the disruption of which results in painful symptoms of
   mental and emotional distress. In its more avant-garde forms, such as
   the Jungian, this approach postulates collective or archetypal
   structures of intentionality (and thus consciousness)-the
   fragmentation of which contributes to psychopathology.
   
   5. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY views consciousness as embedded in networks of
   cultural meaning or, alternatively, as being largely a byproduct of
   the social system itself. This includes approaches as varied as
   ecological, Marxist, constructivist, and cultural hermeneutics, all of
   which maintain that the nexus of consciousness is not located merely
   or even principally in the individual.
   
   6. CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY focuses on the relation of psychopathology,
   behavioral patterns, and psychopharmacology. For the last half
   century, psychiatry was largely anchored in a Freudian metapsychology,
   but the field increasingly tends to view consciousness in strictly
   neurophysiological and biological terms, verging on a clinical
   identity theory: Consciousness is the neuronal system, so that a
   presenting problem in the former is actually an imbalance in the
   latter, correctable with medication.
   
   7. DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY views consciousness not as a single entity
   but as a developmentally unfolding process with a substantially
   different architecture at each of its stages of growth. Thus an
   understanding of consciousness demands an investigation of the
   architecture at each of its levels of unfolding. In its more inclusive
   forms, this approach covers higher stages of exceptional development
   and well-being, and the study of gifted, extraordinary, and
   supranormal capacities, viewed as higher developmental potentials
   latent in all humans. This includes higher stages of cognitive,
   affective, somatic, moral, and spiritual development.
   
   8. PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE views consciousness as strongly and
   intrinsically interactive with organic bodily processes, evidenced in
   such fields as psychoneuroimmunology and biofeedback. In its more
   challenging and controversial forms, this approach includes
   consciousness and miraculous healing, the effects of prayer on
   remarkable recoveries, light/sound and healing, spontaneous remission,
   and so on. It also includes any of the approaches that investigate the
   effects of intentionality on healing, from art therapy to
   visualization to psychotherapy and meditation.
   
   9. NONORDINARY STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, from dreams to psychedelics,
   constitute a field of study that, its advocates believe, is crucial to
   a grasp of consciousness in general. Although some of the effects of
   psychedelics-to take a controversial example-are undoubtedly due to
   "toxic side-effects," the consensus in this area of research is that
   they also act as a "nonspecific amplifier of experience," and thus
   they can be instrumental in disclosing and amplifying aspects of
   consciousness that might otherwise go unstudied.
   
   10. EASTERN AND CONTEMPLATIVE TRADITIONS maintain that ordinary
   consciousness is but a narrow and restricted version of deeper or
   higher modes of awareness, and that specific injunctions (yoga,
   meditation) are necessary to evoke these higher and exceptional
   potentials. Moreover, they all maintain that the essentials of
   consciousness itself can only be grasped in these higher, postformal,
   and nondual states of consciousness.
   
   11. QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS, as it may be called, views consciousness as
   being intrinsically capable of interacting with, and altering, the
   physical world, generally through quantum interactions, both in the
   human body at the intracellular level (for example, microtubules), and
   in the material world at large (psi). This approach also includes the
   many and various attempts to plug consciousness into the physical
   world according to various avant-garde physical theories
   (bootstrapping, hyperspace, strings).
   
   12. SUBTLE ENERGIES RESEARCH has postulated that there exist subtler
   types of bioenergies beyond the four recognized forces of physics
   (strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational), and that
   these subtler energies play an intrinsic role in consciousness and its
   activity. Known in the traditions by such terms as prana, ki, and
   ch'i-and said to be responsible for the effectiveness of acupuncture,
   to give only one example-these energies are often held to be the
   "missing link" between intentional mind and physical body. For the
   Great Chain theorists, both East and West, this bioenergy acts as a
   two-way conveyor belt, transferring the impact of matter to the mind
   and imposing the intentionality of the mind on matter.
   
                       PREMATURE COGNITIVE COMMITMENT
                                      
   What I have observed in the field of consciousness studies (as
   elsewhere) is that researchers tend to choose one or two of those
   approaches very early in their careers, usually under the influence of
   a significant mentor, organization, or academic department. And, human
   nature being what it is, it is then extremely difficult for them to
   embrace, or sometimes even acknowledge, the existence of the other
   approaches. Evidence that supports their position is avidly
   accumulated; evidence that does not is ignored, devalued, or explained
   away.
   
   But what if, instead, we make the following assumption: The human mind
   is incapable of producing 100 percent error. In other words, nobody is
   smart enough to be wrong all the time.
   
   That would mean, very simply, that each of those dozen approaches
   cannot contain only error; put positively, each of them has something
   extremely important and valuable to say. And that means, inescapably,
   that we will measure our progress toward a truly integral orientation
   based precisely on our capacity to include, synthesize, and integrate
   all twelve of those important approaches. It is clearly a daunting
   challenge; but it is equally clear that anything less than that simply
   cannot claim the adjective "integral."
   
   How, then, are we actually doing? How far down this integral path are
   we? And, just as important, what are some of the steps we might take
   in the immediate future in order to further this noble quest?
   
                    THE HARD-HEADED AND THE SOFT-HEARTED
                                      
   From the view of empirical science, we might note that the dozen
   approaches span the spectrum from the very hard to the very soft. At
   one end are the "harder" approaches, approaches that attempt
   vigorously to ground themselves in empirical observables. These
   include cognitive science, neuropsychology, and clinical psychiatry.
   These "harder" views shade into a softer range of approaches that
   begin to give a substantial weight to interiority and
   consciousness-including psychosomatic medicine, quantum approaches,
   individual psychotherapy, developmental psychology, and social
   psychology. And these shade into the "very soft" approaches that
   stress the fundamental priority of consciousness itself, especially as
   disclosed in subtle energies, nonordinary states, and contemplative
   endeavors.
   
   Surveying the various directions in consciousness studies in the past
   decade, several strong trends stand out. To begin with, substantial
   strides have been made by all three "camps." At the harder end of the
   spectrum, cognitive science (and its many offshoots and affiliates)
   has come to define the mainstream of the "science of consciousness
   studies," at least in Anglo-Saxon countries. While advocates of the
   other approaches might feel that cognitive science and neuropsychology
   take much too narrow a stance, nonetheless the strides these fields
   have made are indeed most impressive-starting with the simple fact
   that they have at least begun to introduce the study of consciousness
   as a "respectable" and "scientific" endeavor, after what amounted to
   several decades of positivistic and behavioristic denial that
   consciousness even existed! This feat alone is something of a
   historical breakthrough that has especially come to fruition in the
   last decade.
   
   The intermediate range approaches-exemplified by developmental
   psychology and social psychology-have also made substantial (and in
   some cases paradigmatic) breakthroughs. Following in the wake of the
   Piagetian revolution (which I believe will be ranked as one of the two
   or three greatest psychological revolutions of the modern era), the
   notion of higher stages of consciousness unfolding has been given
   strong empirical and phenomenological grounding, and has been backed
   by cross-cultural studies in social psychology. Abraham Maslow, the
   cofounder of both Third Force (humanistic) and Fourth Force
   (transpersonal) psychologies, stands here in an absolutely pivotal
   role, and numerous studies in the past decade have continued and
   greatly refined this Piaget/Maslow line of research.
   
   The approaches at the tenderest end of the spectrum have likewise
   reported equally impressive advances. At this moment, we have more
   access to more contemplative traditions than at any time in history.
   Beginning roughly two or three decades ago, an unprecedented number of
   young Americans took up advanced contemplative studies, ranging from
   Zen to contemplative prayer, from kundalini yoga to vipassana, from
   Vajrayana to Sufism, from Vedanta to Kabalah. Many of these students
   have now "graduated" and are themselves gifted and inspiring teachers,
   calling us all to recognize the primordial and sacred nature of
   consciousness itself, by whatever name.
   
   In addition to the individual advances in each of the camps, we might
   note two important overall trends or "megatrends" in consciousness
   studies as a whole. On the one hand, there has occurred something of a
   consolidation and entrenchment of the "harder" approaches: In the
   Anglo-Saxon mainstream view, cognitive science, neuroscience,
   neuropsychology, and clinical psychiatry are the "real" approaches to
   consciousness, with everything else relegated to "unscientific"
   (translation: not real) status. Compared to the softer approaches,
   this hegemony of the hard-headed is perhaps unfortunate; but let us
   remember that, compared with positivism and behaviorism, this is a
   major and massive advance! Some of us might even like to see this as
   an evolutionary or developmental advance, but a step up from
   positivistic flatland it is indeed.
   
   The other megatrend simply leans into this advance even further:
   Although the harder views have become the institutional mainstream,
   nonetheless the intermediate and softer approaches are making
   substantial headway. There has been, in the last decade, a general,
   subtle, but unmistakable "softening" toward the tender end of the
   spectrum.
   
   Perhaps this softening is due to a general evolution of consciousness
   itself. Perhaps it is due to the massive accumulation of data that
   gives very hard evidence for very soft realities. (One major but often
   overlooked reason for this softening? The college kids who did inhale
   and who are now department heads of psychology and psychiatry know
   from first-hand experience that there are softer realities than are
   dreamt of in hard-headed science.)
   
   But whatever the reason, this second megatrend-a drift toward the
   tender-seems undeniable. Indeed, "noetic studies" has come to mean
   something of an emphasis on the softer end of the spectrum, grounding
   itself in introspectionism and contemplative studies to complement the
   harder approaches. Of course, how much impact this second megatrend
   will have (a shift toward the noetic) remains to seen. Indeed, one of
   the items we will want to examine is how to further this particular
   avenue of research-the uniting of the hard-headed and the
   soft-hearted, which is simply another way to think of the integral
   approach (I will return to this notion in a moment).
   
                             THE PIECES PREVAIL
                                      
   Thus, in surveying the field of consciousness studies in the last
   decade, I am both heartened and saddened. There has been an
   unprecedented explosion of interest in consciousness studies on the
   whole. We have witnessed the publication of numerous and quite
   significant books on consciousness itself, and they come not merely
   from "alternative" education centers or publishers, but rather from
   the likes of Oxford University Press, MIT, Praeger, and Harvard. We
   have seen increasing empirical research on everything from the effects
   of meditation on psychological health to the effects of prayer on
   heart patients. Combined with the wealth of information from Eastern
   and contemplative approaches, we very likely possess, in these closing
   years of the second millennium, more sheer data on consciousness
   studies than at any time in humankind's history.
   
   And yet, and yet . . . the pieces prevail. Although there are numerous
   important exceptions, for the most part the research remains
   "one-approach" bound. Daniel Dennett takes a functionalist cognitive
   stance (#1); John Searle stresses intentionality (#2). Systems
   theorists (#5) resort to a holistic view, but it is an exterior holism
   only, grounded in monological and process it-language, devoid of an
   "I" or a "we." Neuropsychology (#3) races toward the day when the
   beauty of a sunset will be described in chemical terms such as
   "dopamine," "serotonin," and "synaptic re-uptake." Quantum
   consciousness (#11) breathlessly announces that human free will
   resides in the collapse of the Schrdinger wave equation. Exceptional
   healing (#8) looks for consciousness in the display of the miraculous,
   while social constructivism (#5) maintains that the entire show is a
   facade of ideology and power parading as knowledge itself.
   
   Thus, even though each of these approaches has made impressive
   advances in the last decade, and even though an important megatrend
   has been the softening and more inclusionary stance of various tender
   approaches, and even though there is a concerted effort on the part of
   some researchers to create inter-disciplinary dialogue, I still find
   that this is by far the weakest link in the chain of consciousness
   studies. In other words, I find that there is a palpable absence of a
   concerted effort to study and advance not just the dozen or so major
   approaches but the ways in which they all, without exception,
   intrinsically fit together as part of the unbroken Kosmos. And so
   perhaps I might close with a few thoughts on just that topic.
   
                               THE CHALLENGE
                                      
   Given the above factors, I believe that three major steps, in
   particular, are necessary for the future of consciousness studies:
   
   1. Continue research on the various particular approaches. That is,
   continue to refine our understanding of the many pieces of the puzzle
   of consciousness. The twelve approaches I briefly outlined are twelve
   significant pieces of this extraordinary enigma; each is profoundly
   important; each deserves continued and vigorous research and
   development.
   
   2. Confront the simple fact that, in some cases, a change in
   consciousness on the part of the researchers themselves is mandatory
   for the investigation of consciousness itself. Some aspects of
   consciousness can indeed be accessed by conventional, empirical,
   scientific methodology. But, as numerous approaches (for example, #7,
   #9, #10) have pointed out, the higher or postformal stages of
   consciousness development can only be accessed by those who have
   themselves developed to a postformal level. You can master systems
   theory without necessarily developing postformal awareness; you
   absolutely cannot master Zen without doing so. You can understand
   Dennett without transforming consciousness; you cannot understand
   Plotinus without doing so. If you are therefore investigating
   postformal domains, then postformal injunctions are mandatory.
   
   Thus, some consciousness studies can indeed be continued by doing
   "business as usual," and it is important to acknowledge that. But some
   of the pieces of the puzzle of consciousness cannot be grasped without
   postformal development on the part of participant-observers. This
   deepest of taboos and deepest of myths-namely, the sanctity of the
   detached observer-does not insure objectivity in postformal studies:
   It insures failure to grasp the data at the very start.
   
   Given the two megatrends that we noted (the entrenchment of the harder
   cognitive sciences, and yet a discernible shift toward the softer and
   noetic end of the spectrum), this would specifically mean: Let us
   continue to work especially to advance noetic studies as a
   counterbalance to the harder mainstream views. Not anti-mainstream,
   not against, not denying, not denigrating, not deconstructing, but
   rather complementing, supplementing, completing, and fulfilling:
   transcend and include mainstream, not transcend and deny.
   
   3. Continue to grope our way toward a genuinely integral theory of
   consciousness itself. The mere claim to be "integral," as we have
   seen, is virtually meaningless, since most of the various approaches
   sincerely believe they are covering all the really important bases,
   and thus most of them implicitly claim to be as integral as one can
   be. In the last decade, although there have been some significant
   exceptions, we have mostly had twelve pieces all claiming to be the
   whole pie.
   
   In a series of books (including Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; A Brief
   History of Everything; and The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a
   World Gone Slightly Mad), I have attempted to outline one version of
   an integral theory of consciousness that explicitly includes those
   twelve major approaches. In this short space I cannot even begin to
   give an adequate summary, and I don't think it would be appropriate to
   do so in an essay surveying consciousness studies as a whole.. What is
   important is not, I think, my particular version of an integral view,
   but rather that we all begin to enter into this extraordinary dialogue
   about the possibility of an integral approach in general, an approach
   that-we can say this in several different ways-integrates the
   hard-headed with the soft-hearted, the natural sciences with the
   noetic sciences, objective realities with subjective realities, the
   empirical with the transcendental.
   
   Let us hope that a decade from now somebody might spot a third great
   megatrend in consciousness studies-namely, the truly integral-and let
   it start right now with all of us who share this concern for holism,
   for embrace, for synthesizing, for integrating: Let this outreach
   start with us, right here, right now.
   
   Is a genuinely integral theory of consciousness even possible? That
   would be my question, and my challenge. How big is our umbrella? How
   wide and how deep can we throw our net of good will? How many voices
   will we allow in this chorus of consciousness? How many faces of the
   divine will smile on our endeavor? How many colors will we genuinely
   acknowledge in our rainbow coalition?
   
   And when we pause from all this research, and put theory temporarily
   to rest, and when we relax into the primordial ground of our own
   intrinsic awareness, what will we find therein? When the joy of the
   robin sings on a clear morning dawn, where is our consciousness then?
   When the sunlight beams from the glory of a snow-capped mountain,
   where is consciousness then? In the place that time forgot, in this
   eternal moment without date or duration, in the secret cave of the
   heart where time touches eternity and space cries out for infinity,
   when the raindrop pulses on the temple roof, and announces the beauty
   of the divine with every single beat, when the moonlight reflects in a
   simple dewdrop to remind us who and what we are, and when in the
   entire universe there is nothing but the sound of a lonely waterfall
   somewhere in the mists, gently calling your name-where is
   consciousness then?
   
   Ken Wilber is the author of more than a dozen books, including No
   Boundary; Transformations of Consciousness; Grace and Grit; Sex,
   Ecology, Spirituality; and A Brief History of Everything. His own
   suggestions for an integral theory of consciousness can be found in
   The Eye of Spirit-An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad,
   forthcoming from Shambhala Publications, and in "An Integral Theory of
   Consciousness," forthcoming in The Journal of Consciousness Studies.