Two conferences, two coasts, two weeks

I am fresh back from attending two diametrically different conferences. The first being the Nonduality and Science conference held in Marin County, CA. The second being the annual SPEP (Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy)/SPHS (Society for Phenomenology and Human Science) conference (generally known as continental philosophy) held this last week (21st-25th) in D.C./Arlington and hosted by George Mason University.

The first thing I have to say, is that the differences couldn’t have been more apparent. At the Nonduality conference, where I volunteered and attended several sessions, there was the usual California pluralistic feel. Eclectic, sometimes strange, and always interesting. Regardless, there were presentations and workshops that I’ve come to regard as standard for the style of conferences in spirituality and consciousness.

Conversely, the SPEP conference was an eye-opener for me. I have never been to a conference where every single presenter (with the exception of a handful of people) simply read the paper that they had prepared. That is, they READ their paper outloud and then discussed it afterwards. From my point of view, this is not presenting or connecting with the audience but merely reading outloud what I could have read myself. Granted, the papers were quite good and there were some incredibly interesting points being made, but if you are not familiar with the particular area of specialization being presented, then the risk of feeling  lost, frustrated, and confused is high. Indeed, that is the whole point, I thought, of presenting: to bring your ideas to a wider audience, even if that audience is not familiar with your area of interest. That is to say, the ways things are done in philosophy is ENTIRELY different from the way things are done in psychology and the other consciousness-oriented conferences I have been to. It is a completely different style that I found to be difficult to reconcile.

I don’t want to disrespect the brilliance of the people at SPEP and the hard work that they have obviously put into their papers, but I must say that if I had read the papers being presented I probably would have understood most of it. However, listening to someone present in a rather monotone and unengaging way meant that much of what I heard was simply jibberish, which is unfortunate, because I know that there are brilliant ideas and works being presented (which is why it is so frustrating). (As a caveat, some of the more established scholars gave VERY engaging presentations of their papers while reading them verbatim, so it is possible to do it well).

There were only a handful of powerpoint presentations, most went analogue/old-school (sans powerpoint or multimedia).

What I am trying to say is that philosophy is inherently complex and detail-oriented. It is not easy to understand and even if you have a PhD in the stuff, it seemed that there are so many traditions and perspectives and philosophies out there that the likelihood of understanding everything that was being said is very low, unless you’ve come to hear someone present in your area of expertise. In particular, I felt sympathy for all those people who were either just getting into philosophy or who come from different fields who merely wanted to expose themselves to new perspectives, many of whom I met and colluded with me the fact that they were having a hard time understanding it all. From a social psychology point of view, this is a problem.

Regardless, I had an amazing time. I met some incredible people and engaging in lively discussions on a whole range of issues. I also, incidentally, proud to announce that I have managed to get formally involved in SPHS on an organizational level, having just been elected to be the new “board member-at-large” for the next two years at SPHS thanks to Gary Backhaus (and Michael Barber), members of my committee. SPHS is comprised of the bulk of the most brilliant and prolific scholars in phenomenology and, in particular the works of Husserl and Schutz, among other areas too numerous to mention).

I should also mention that I presented my dissertation research as well. I was told to NOT simply read from my paper but to actually give a presentation, so that is what I did. I found that this had mixed results for this crowd. Overall, it seemed to go well, all things considered. Debate is the name of the game and having your ideas challenged and defending them is certainly a particular specialization in philosophy, which I think is great, as long as it is done respectfully.

Nonetheless, it was incredibly formative and priceless in terms of practice and exposure as I develop my experience and knowledge as a scholar. I love philosophy and especially love phenomenology. I can’t wait for next year’s SPEP/SPHS conference in Montreal.

Update on my Article

Some people have (gratefully) shown interest in my upcoming article in the Humanistic Psychologist. I was erroneously under the impression that it would be released in issue #3 but that is, apparently, not the case. It will be issue #4, which means waiting even longer to actually see it in print.

My apologies to those I’ve told it would be issue #3.

Ego, Spiritual Transformation, and the Paradox of Transpersonal Psychology

Ah, Kaisa Puhakka. Her words are so beautiful. I’ve always been a fan and now What is Enlightenment? magazine (now EnlighteNext) has revisited and released formerly unpublished parts of an interview they had with her back in the summer of 2000, when she was still at ITP (she’s now at CIIS).

It has some great nuggets of wisdom, as usual. You go girl.

Ego, Spiritual Transformation, and the Paradox of Transpersonal Psychology.

Society for Phenomenology and the Human Sciences (SPHS) Conference, October 29-31, Arlington, VA, 2009

In the interest of getting close to the major players involved in the esoteric but, I find, fascinating world of Alfred Schutz, Husserl, and phenomenology in general, I have been accepted to present my dissertation research at the upcoming Society for Phenomenological and Existential Philosophy (SPEP) conference this October. SPEP is hosting the simultaneous conference with SPHS, which I am presenting at.

My dissertation, as stated on this blog, concerns hermeneutic-phenomenological research into Husserl’s transcendental intersubjectivity, Schutz’s social phenomenology, and transpersonal theory.

Article accepted by The Humanistic Psychologist

My god. Well, after waiting over two years, my article Universal Integralism: Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology in a Social Change Context: A Critical Analysis of Wilber’s Integral Method has been accepted for publication due out this summer.

Yes, this was a very long wait but seeing how I’m a young scholar who is still finishing his doctoral work as well as this being my first peer-reviewed publication, I decided to commit to however long it would take to get it published in this journal, one of the main outlets for my field.

I cannot say that I will be so patient next time (I mean, to wait two years is a bit extreme considering the number of good journals out there) but I am glad it finally worked out considering the amount of work that I put into getting into print. Now, I can only hope that the article is worth something to those who read it.

Toward a Science of Consciousness Conference, Hong Kong, Summer 2009

Alrighty then . . . So, Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very far away. My advisor/chair has highly recommended that I go to either the next APA convention in Toronto or the Science of Consciousness Conference (usually in Tucson) but in Hong Kong this year. Toronto is out of the picture because I’ve already made plans to be in Kauai at that time. Hong Kong is, frankly, a longshot in terms of funding but I registered and submitted an abstract anyway. I’m still working on opening energetic doorways if it turns out that I’m meant to be there. We’ll see. If I do go I will be presenting on whatever work I have completed on my dissertation by that time. Here’s the latest evolution of my abstract, which I just submitted yesterday:

PHENOMENOLOGY OF COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS: HUSSERL’S TRANSCENDENTAL INTERSUBJECTIVITY AND COLLECTIVE EMERGENT INTENTIONALITY

Abstract

What is the relationship between Husserl’s transcendental intersubjectivity and transpersonal theories of the collective, that is, collective trans-subjective experience “beyond the mask”? What are the ways in which transcendental phenomenology and social constructionism find congruence in theories of human transcendence inspired by the world’s wisdom traditions? Based upon these and other questions, I suggest ways that we can illuminate the complex relationship between self, other, and world in the context of the writings of Edmund Husserl and collective consciousness as emergent intentionality. My aim is to propose a preliminary framework for a more comprehensive and useful understanding of the relationship between Husserl’s transcendental intersubjectivity and the intersubjective aspects of transpersonal theory within the context of philosophical phenomenology, Habermas’ understanding of postmetaphysics, and consciousness studies, broadly construed. Such efforts aspire to clarify the tension between Husserl’s phenomenology and social constructionism (after Schütz) through theories of transcendence of the subjective self, e.g., the transpersonal. I pay particular attention to the exploration of the ways in which Husserl’s transcendental intersubjectivity can contribute to a greater understanding of how the collective interior evolves between human beings. From this, new avenues for consciousness research are explored.

copyright ©, Sean Saiter, 2009

EUROTAS Conference, Barcelona

It’s a curious thing how my mind works: an entirely appropriate thing to say considering I’m a psychologist. I just realized that I hadn’t posted anything related to the last major conference I went to: the European Transpersonal Associations (EUROTAS) latest conference which was held in Barcelona this last October.

I must say, I really had my doubts about making out to Spain at all in light of the economy and my status as a graduate student on a budget. Let’s just say that I certainly don’t get any stipends or institutional funding or support to go to conferences.

Having spent the majority of my childhood (military brat) in Madrid, I jumped at the opportunity to make it back to Spain. Not only that but I consider EUROTAS conferences to be the only place in the world where being a student at ITP is considered prestigious. Sad but true. Most of the time I have answer to puzzled looks and expressions of bewilderment when I mention the word “transpersonal.” It is a cross that took me a long time to come to terms with bearing. That is, I have my “moments” when it comes to sharing my enthusiasm and vision for the field, which is generally omnipresent and quite strong.

Barcelona is a world-class, cosmopolitan city teeming with riches. The fact that the conference was held here attests to the uniquely Catalonian character of the whole event. Wine was served with nearly every meal and people were generally very informal and “relaxed.” Need I mention that everyone I met was incredibly friendly?

I presented a simple talk on my observations as a member of the next generation for the future of the field. I think it went very well, considering the usual technical difficulties. Most of the time I was met with several nods in agreement as I slowed-down the pace of my talk considerably to accommodate my translator to turn my American English into Catalan.

I love conferences like this and I certainly feel blessed to be able to make it to Europe when money and funds are so rare in this field, especially as a student footing the bill out-of-pocket. Now, if I can just figure out a way to get someone to sponsor me in the future . . .

Update on my Dissertation Topic

Okay, so, basically I am doing extremely well and am a bit ahead of the game, which feels very good. I have successfully passed my “mini-proposal” (where I write a draft version of the first three chapters of my dissertation: a major hoop to jump through at ITP) and can now begin forming my committee.

However, my advisor, Olga, suggests that I still need to refine and simplify my topic as it is still too much to handle if I want to graduate anytime in the next decade. This means that I have to make some difficult choices (same old story).

As it stands, she has convinced me of the wisdom of switching my method from thematic analysis to Giorgi’s phenomenological method. She has also convinced me that it is okay to just focus on Husserl and Merleau-Ponty and drop Levinas, as much as I’m interested in his work. Husserl and Merleau-Ponty are certainly enough to work with–this I know.

Yet, beyond this I’m coming up against some reluctance to drop any of the three core topics: direct perception, intersubjectivity, and collective emergent consciousness. Intersubjectivity is where the juice is for me but she has proposed that I focus on comparing Husserl and Merleau-Ponty’s versions of phenomenology based upon their own lived experience or direct perception. That is, she thinks I can drop intersubjectivity and collective consciousness and just focus on the direct perception of these two using phenomenological psychology to examine their life and work.

Yes, well, this may very well be very dry and nit-picky to many but it is crucial to my career path and any academic choices I make within the next few years.

I am hoping to work this out very soon. In the meantime, I will continue to procrastinate on my other duties by updating all of my online profiles and blogs.

My topic so far

So, I’ve made a great deal of progress on my topic so far. I’ve spent the last nine months actively and intensely trying to refine what the hell it is that I’m REALLY interested in. I have been told just how difficult refining one’s topic is but I had no idea it would take this long. A big part of the problem is that I’m a synthetic, high-level thinker, which means that I start big and then have to move into more manageable, practical spaces, which I find excruciatingly difficult. I mean, there are just so many connections and they all seem to be important in some way.

That being said, at the beginning of the summer, I started of with the incredibly ambitious question of “How is it that we know anything?” I mean, I want to investigate what it means to “know” something. Well, as it turns out, there are many ways to investigate this. I found myself delving into a vast array of broad texts on epistemology, the history of scientific psychology, consciousness studies, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, history of philosophy, history of psychology, and so on. My advisor, Olga Louchakova, suggested I try taking on the topic of “cognitive styles” and looking into the philosophy behind the construct (which is used in cognitive science). I discovered that I just couldn’t own it, as much as I learned a great deal about it in the process. I now feel that I have a better grasp of the cognitive and philosophy of mind literature.

Through this, I’ve discovered just how much I love phenomenology. I mean, c’mon, this stuff if amazing. Phenomenology, as a philosophical school of thought and practice, is at the crossroads of so many disciplines and helps to give depth and context to the humanistic/transpersonal/integral schools of thought of recent decades. It really has brought so much together for me in these last few months and I now feel that I have a vocabulary that lends itself to pretty much any area within philosophy or psychology. Many articles, books, and topics that have made little sense to me in the past seem to have opened themselves up to me since I started to get deeper into the philosophical and historical contexts around phenomenology and the  Continental/Analytic divide since the European Enlightenment and the triumph of Reason (modernism).

Here’s a snapshot of what I’ve got so far. This is my title and abstract:

DIRECT PERCEPTION, INTERSUBJECTIVITY, AND COLLECTIVE EMERGENT CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE WORKS OF HUSSERL, MERLEAU-PONTY, AND LEVINAS: A THEORETICAL THEMATIC ANALYSIS

Abstract

What is the relationship between direct perception (unmediated, preconscious experience) and intersubjectivity (self and other in relation)? What is the “essence,” or underlying core of this relationship? In other words, what can the relationship between direct perception and intersubjectivity tell us about how we “know” the world? Furthermore, how is this relationship analogous to the concept of emergence (autopoiesis) and notions of collective consciousness? Based upon these and other questions, this study seeks to analyze and illuminate the complex relationship between self, other, and world through a middle-ground (moderate) social constructionist lens in the context of the writings of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas.

1st Biennial Integral Theory Conference

I just recently came back from the 1st biennial Integral Theory Conference held at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, CA. What I found unusual about the conference, in my experience, was just how many people I knew there. I reconnected with people I haven’t seen in years and many that I’ve recently met but not seen in a while. Old friends and new alike, I can say it was a great conference. It was, I must say, definitely focused on the intellect and theory. No surprise there, but I heard a few folks complaining about how it wasn’t “integral” enough. I find this so amusing considering how difficult it truly is to remain “integral” all the time in all possible ways. Personally, I think it’s absurd to think one can be conscious (i.e. perfect) all of the time. It’s just way too stressful if you ask me. Nonetheless, I gotta say, I thought it was a great first event that was very professional and seemed to be well-organized.

I presented a poster version of the work I did on my doctoral qualifying paper. After working on the poster and attending a few of the first talks, I realized just how many gaps there were in my thinking. The fact of the matter is, that any piece of work is always just a snapshot of where an individual is at that given moment in their understanding and development. There is always more to know or to understand.

I lament that I did not get to present at this conference but I think I made enough new friends and contacts to make up for this fact.

Here’s a copy of my poster for your convenience (please note, this material has been copyrighted):

integral_presentation (ppt)