Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

Bringing the Education Institution-horse to the Integral-water: An Insiders View on the

Ongoing Odyssey of an Institution


Thomas G. Brophy, Ph.D.
California Institute for Human Science
tgbrophy@gmail.com
Abstract: 1997, I left a technical management job in industry in Colorado to ply my academic
background in physics, together with my avocational background in contemplative and esoteric
metaphysical traditions, as Dean of Administration at a unique fledgling graduate school and
research institute in San Diego, founded by Hiroshi Motoyama, a philosopher, scientist, yogi,
parapsychologist, spiritual counselor and Head Priest of a sizable Shinto temple in Tokyo, Japan.
This paper discusses my efforts to implement AQAL Integral Theory as central to the curriculum
and institutional mission of the graduate school and research institute, California Institute for
Human Science. The nascent institute had nonconventional programs oriented around
psychospiritual growth, the integration of scientific and psychospiritual perpectives, research
interests including nonconventional areas such as parapsychology, and an evolutionary holistic
global-society mission. However, to become a sustainable institution while maintaining its
nonconventional focus, it needed an integrative theoretical foundation with connections to the
broader academic and scientific cultures, allowing the basis for its programs to be articulated
more broadly AQAL Integral Theory.

Introduction
I will introduce this paper with some recollections from the interior-individual
perspective on how I got involved with the topic. I chose physics as an undergraduate major,
and topic in graduate school, as a second-best or ancillary topic to what I really wanted to study
which didnt actually exist as an academic field (probably still doesnt really exist), which could
be called something like reality-theory or integral-reality-theory or metaintegral-metareality-

metatheory. Philosophy obviously could have been another choice of ancillary academic field,
but practical concerns dictated physics (there are actually some jobs related to physics). So I
pursued what I perceived to be the other parts of reality-theory that I really wanted to study on
my own esoteric spiritual philosophy, contemplative practices in conjunction with
conventional physics education, beginning at a liberal arts college (The Colorado College) and
spending a year (senior undergrad) in Japan focusing on language and humanities, and finding
zen temples to practice at.
The rigors of conventional physics graduate school (UC Boulder), specializing first in
nuclear physics then in planetary astrophysics, and teaching, constricted time for the
other/integral parts of my general interest (reality-theory) but did allow me to formally if briefly
touch on the bits of modern physics theory that relate most closely to reality-theory. Also
conventional physics applied to planetary astrophysics, and the privilege to work with NASA
planetary exploration projects (e.g. Brophy 1991, 1992), had its own excitements and attractions.
During a joint NSF-JSPS two year post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Tokyo connected
with the Japanese space program, I fostered further development of those interests while
maintaining contact with esoteric-spiritual studies and contemplative practices. Then and while
drafting a manuscript that later was published as a book The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism
(Brophy, 1998) the two sides of my fundamental interest in reality-theory continued to diverge
with working in science-academia-industry on the one side, and writing/studying esoteric
spirituality/doing contemplative practice on the other side.
At that time, I read a magazine interview of Hiroshi Motoyama (Share Intl. 1994),
wherein it seemed to me that he was talking about efforts to re-integrate those two-sides of
reality-theory. I wrote to him a note stating such, and he in turn invited me to visit him at his

Temple and research institute facility on Inokashira lake in a beautiful city park in the outskirts
of Tokyo. Serendipitously, I was able to do so because I had scheduled a trip back to Japan on
personal business. From that meeting and going forward, it seemed clear that Dr. Motoyama was
in fact trying to develop an integral path, and that he had essentially tasked himself to do so. As
a boy, he was adopted by the head priestess of a significant Shinto and integrative-religious
order, called Odai-sama, who as his spiritual mother and partnering with his biological mother
as an actual mother, raised Hiroshi while training him to be her spiritual successor of the esoteric
religious order. Somewhere along the way, Hiroshi took it upon himself to follow the
spiritual/contemplative/esoteric/religious training and also integrate it with scientific training and
practice. He thus took two PhDs at the University of Tokyo, on the two sides of the realitytheory divide, in fields we might call scientific-physiology and spiritual-philosophy, did postdoctoral work in philosophy in Germany, and was invited by the then well-known
parapsychologist J.B. Rhine to postdoctoral research work at Duke University. He studied,
practiced, and researched yogic traditions in India, with Saraswati Satyananda (see e.g.
Motoyama 1981 for notes on his background), and while functioning as head priest of
Tamamitsu Shinto religion in Japan he worked to develop devices to attempt to measure the
subtle energies associated with spiritual awaking in the human body (sometimes called
kundalini energy or the chakra-nadi system in vedic tradion, and/or the acupuncture meridian
system in traditional Chinese medicine). Particularly he had recently patented the AMI device
(Apparatus for Meridian Identification) when I first met him at Inokashira park.
Soon he invited me back to the institute for a two month research stay on what he called a
Motoyama-Bentov fellowship named after his physicist friend who had penned the book
Stalking the Wild Pendulum (1988). The general topic was to be our essential common interest

-- finding the mechanism of operation of these energies in the body, chi, chakras, meridians.
Somehow, my job of the time in technical projects management at USWest allowed me the two
months leave, calling it a sabbatical. Over the following two years, Motoyama asked me to
consult occasionally with the institute he had founded 1992 in Encinitas, California, CIHS, then
asked me to relocate there for a role as dean of administration in 1997.
Organization Charts and Institutional Culture
When I signed onto the job, my role and the institutes administration were ostensibly
organized like a conventional (very) small college, with a president/CEO managing a CFO/vice
president both in turn managing deans in turn managing faculty and staff. As administrative
dean, one of my many contractual roles was supposed to be overseeing day to day operations of
the institute during the majority of the year that the president-founder was not in the US. In
Spiral Dynamical organizational theory, this is a blue stage (rules/roles values based)
organizational chart (e.g. Beck), with reporting and responsibilities mapping onto a tree-like
chart. It soon became apparent however that the place actually operated in more of a gurucentric
organizational mode, with the president-founder and some disciples of the religious organization
attempting to manage directly to all levels and all functions of the institute (more of a Spiral
Dynamical red stage, power-gods-based, organizational structure with responsibility lines
connecting from the central figure to all in the organization). In hind sight, it could be seen to
have been expected and natural the institute would operate red stage organizationally, because
the founder was also religious and spiritual head of a religious institution separate from CIHS
(which operated, and operates, as a 501 c-3 not for profit corporation), and disciples of the
religious institution were the primary, essentially only, financial backers of CIHS. And within
the spiritual-religious organization, a case could be made that a more guru-centric organizational

holarchy was naturally appropriate if the leader is indeed stage-wise more advanced on a
spiritual-realization developmental line.
This type of organizational-structural problem is a not uncommon barrier for nascent
institutions founded by a visionary. That is why certain elements of organizational structure are
the first tests to be eligible to apply for academic regional accrediting bodies like WASC
(Western Association of Schools and Colleges). Particularly required is a governing board
composed of a majority non-conflicted members, with the power to hire and fire a CEO who is
full time and local (retrievable: http://www.acswasc.org/). This barred CIHSs early efforts at
WASC accreditation. Recently, a workaround solution has gotten CIHS a go ahead from WASC
to begin the application process which is underway. We are hopeful that an articulation of a
more outward-looking foundational context via AQAL integral model may be a positive that will
help out-weigh any borderline organizational structure issues in the application process.
As noted by WASC, in order to become sustainable and successful as an institution
however, a contemporary graduate school and research institute, by virtue of the broader sociocultural context within which it must operate and with which it must co-operate and co-create
itself needs to function at least at blue-stage (and preferably higher stage) organizational
structure. This is a particularly difficult situation to try to resolve from within. Only by
engaging with pressures from the outside, such as WASC, did movement occur on this issue.
The way I operated my role might have helped some. By two years into my annually renewable
contract, I realized that continuing in my own role unchanged, even though working toward
institutional change, could also contribute to perpetuating the organizational stage problem. So I
evolved my role, transferring to a consulting basis and as regular adjunct faculty as an
independent contractor. Then 12 years later in 2012, when asked to return to a more regular role

I have done so still as an independent contractor technically outside of the administrative


structure, having created a title for myself Integral Sciences Consultant. Via this type of role
and relation to the organization, I have been able to contribute more toward bringing AQAL
Integral toward a stable foundation for a sustainable institute. Possibly this can be seen as a
partial example of a Spiral Dynamical yellow-stage organizational development (e.g. Beck,
Stages of Social Development), wherein important institutional evolutionary and leadership roles
can operate from various, or undefined levels of the organizational chart, even from the
periphery or technically outside of the institution. And as an example of an organization having
to naturally evolve into such modes (not be forced from within) the current younger dean, for
example, had to be able to see the value of and support the role I designed, which ability tends
to come with exposure to organizations and concepts operating at a level close to the level
appreciated.
Fund raising also suffers from the organizational structure problems described above.
Operating as a 501 c-3, the institute was seeking to raise an endowment. The dilemma became
clear that while on the one hand, the generous donations from the religious institute members
allowed CIHS to exist in the first place, the resulting constricted organizational structure would
hamper any significant efforts to expand the donor base. New potentially significant financial
backers would not be able to see clearly if the use of their donations would be differentiated from
the religious organizations purposes. It became clear that being able to articulate a foundational
context based on and connected with an integral model with distributed development and broadly
based socio-cultural connections, would be a necessary step toward eventual more broadly based
funding.
Mapping the Institutes Mission to AQAL Integral

Motoyamas efforts to combine psychospiritual growth and philosophy with scientific


research into the bioenergetic systems of the human body, underlay the motivation and mission
behind founding CIHS. He articulated those pursuits into a set of statements of principle
intended to guide the operations and evolution of CIHS as an institution. The mission and
principles for CIHS, as set forth by him, are consistent with and can essentially be mapped into
the structure of AQALAL-integral theory (all quadrants all lines all levels all types). Motoyama
developed this statement of principles independently of, and chronologically mostly prior to, Ken
Wilbers full articulation of the structure of AQAL Integral Theory. Following, I state those
principles (see CIHS Catalog) and discuss how each map onto AQAL theory:
1)

To promote a Society which enhances the integration of Science and Religion:

This principle seeks to integrate the exterior-material aspect of science and the interior-spiritual
aspect of religion, and to do so explicitely in the sociality aspect of existence. Thus it establishes
both the interior and exterior quadrants of AQAL theory and alludes to the sociality quadrants.
2)

To understand human existence from the total perspective of body, mind and

spirit : This principle introduces a nested holarchy of being with gradations, or levels of being,
thus connecting with the crucial developmental aspect of AQAL theory. And this principle
articulates the integrally important method of incorporating all
perspectives.
3)

To establish guiding principles for the citizens of the global society: This

principle introduces a planetary-based, global worldview, thus including second tier integral
values memes. And this connects with the need to also operate on the moral value sphere--one of
Platos Big Three value spheres which maps to AQAL interior-collective quadrant.

4)

To elucidate the mechanism of the correlation between mind and body, and to

actualize mental control over body and matter with a resulting better life: The first part of this
principle is interesting elucidate the mechanism of the correlation between mind and body. It
is certainly within the scope of the general integral theoretical project, but it is an area that Ken
Wilbers writings have sometimes been criticized for giving sparse attention to, and may be an
explanatory void in the AQAL model at this point. The recent Meta-Integral project, to include
Roy Bhaskars Realist Theory of Science and philosophy of MetaReality with AQAL Integral
theory may offer the ontological grounding to contain and to address the elucidation Motoyama
emphasizes. The second part of this principle, actualize mental control over body and matter
with a resulting better life, can be mapped to the integral life practice kinds of methods while
emphasizing the importance of stage-like developmentalism.
5)

To systematize scientific and objective meditational practices, which will

promote spiritual growth: This principle points to a Wilber-like metatheoretical method


gather, include and synthesize into a whole, various yogic meditational growth/developmental
practices (across cultures).
6)

To establish a creative science which researches the mind and soul as well as

matter: This principle is AQAL-integral in that it emphasizes both interiority and exteriority,
and goes beyond merely the mapping effort to establish the role of forefront scientific research.
And the inclusion of the creative aspect of reality, as I described relative to the 4th principle,
extends into and calls for addressing an explanatory gap in AQAL model.
7)

To establish a society which satisfies both the individuality (freedom and rights)

and sociality (morality and coexistence) of human existence: This principle could obviously be
right out of the AQAL-integral operating system (although it was articulated earlier by

Motoyama) as it emphasizes the irreducible fundamentality of sociality and individuality, and


postconventional development in both realms individual freedom and rights, social morality
and global coexistence.
Thus the mission and principles articulated for CIHS as an institution, map well to the
basic essentials of AQAL Integral theory, and in some areas go beyond AQAL. If so, why is
there any need to establish Integral Theory as the contextualizing basis for CIHS? What does
that effort add?
Connecting with AQAL theory offers three basic advantages: a much bigger bandwagon
(platform); a method based on inclusivity; a platform evolutionary enough to sustain forefront
and leadership missions articulated by Motoyama. To illustrate the first point I sometimes refer
to a video of Bill Clinton (available on youtube) addressing global socio-economic leaders in
Davos, Switzerland and invoking the importance of consciousness development as articulated in
AQAL theory. When Clinton associates those ideas (though rightly so) with American
philosopher Ken Wilber however, some viewers get confused about the second point. AQAL
model and AQAL theory, as viewed in this context, is by definition non-guru-centric, not even
Wilber-centric, and is radically inclusive. The non-individual-centrism of AQAL, and its recent
post-metaphysical (or trans-metaphysical) incarnation, make it more powerful and far more
functional in society than any single unique vision no matter how advanced. The third general
advantage, that AQAL is broad and evolutionary enough to sustain the developmental and
leadership missions articulated by Motoyama is evidenced by the mapping of principles to
AQAL listed above. In this way the AQAL model context will allow advancement of the unique
founding mission of Motoyama by the institute in a sustainable manner. Conversely, this and

other MetaIntegral efforts also contribute to the AQAL Integral project, and avoid it getting
stuck in being seen as Wilbers model.

Teaching Foundations Began the Foundation


In 1998, having been at CIHS for a year, I was slated to teach a course on
Consciousness Studies. Ken Wilber (1995) had recently published Sex, Ecology, Spirituality:
The Spirit of Evolution. Starting with my Motoyama-Bentov fellowship and continuing into my
position at CIHS, I viewed my role to be to develop (research and teach about) in conjunction
with Motoyama a new contextualizing perspective to integrate the sublte energies research of
the institute, including devices like the AMI, from the conventional scientific perspective and
also from the view of developmental spirituality that Motoyama teaches. It seemed to me
Wilbers SES book was suited for that purpose, and it had the additional virtue of being
connected with a broader community via the then new Integral Institute and other related efforts.
Because some students in the course would be disciples, and because it was a key course
in the institute, it was important to vet the book to the effect that it was essentially coherent with
Motoyamas teaching. I did so by asking him to review the book. He agreed it was suitable to
use, in conjunction with his own books.
I informed Ken Wilber that I would use SES as a text book and asked if he would like to
participate by taking a question from each student, via email, after they had read the book.
Surprisingly to some, because Wilber had previously been rather reclusive, he agreed and
actually did field students questions at the end of the course. I recall one students question
especially. She had healthy mistrusts of authority figures, and of hierarchical rankings.
Naturally she rather aggressively posed to Wilber the question what stages HE operates on,

relative to the stage-development theories in the SES book. KW calmly replied with specifics of
what most of his teachers had indicated. That particular student happened to subsequently
came back to the institute as faculty, and is now dean and acting CEO for the purposes of the
WASC accreditation application process.
The course was relatively successful. In subsequent academic quarters however, other
faculty necessarily taught the course and chose other books, sometimes exercising their academic
freedom to not include AQAL Integral at all. So I spearheaded an effort to create a new course,
Foundations of Integral Studies, which would be a central core course. That was accomplished
around year 2000 and AQAL Integral was written into the course description. Then in some
interim years when I had less active association with the institute, the reference to Integral was
taken out of the course description and some instructors of the FIS course stopped including
AQAL Integral at all. When in the mid 2000s I was asked again to consult on revamping the
programs, the central degree program (other than clinical psychology) was renamed to Integral
Health Studies and the Integral was put back into the Foundations of Integral Studies course.
Another cycle of Integral creeping back out of the Integral course occurred before my
more regular re-appointment to the school in 2012. A common theme among both students and
faculty who express difficulty connecting with Integral Theory is the perspective that it is
Wilbers model and thus a perceived rival to their other preferred teachers models, or their
own model. My standard response to that objection is to point out that Wilbers method is to be
essentially radically inclusive, and that Integral Theory is more of a method of evolving
inclusivity than it is a set of dogmatic content. Also, there are now many explications and
applications of integral theory by many authors other than Wilber (e.g. Esbjorn-Hargens 2010),
and there is a large group of scholars independently developing IT such as those at this

conference. (I also ban the use of the term Wilbers model, in favor of AQAL Integral or
Integral Theory, or more recently MetaIntegral or the like.) Another objection often expressed in
the vernacular, I dont like Wilber, reveals a related less serious but common complaint along
the lines of not liking Wilbers personality, that he is mean or is too cerebral, or he is uncouth
(perhaps from the videos of Wilber lecturing in a tank top). These objections were enflamed
partly of course by Wilber himself, via his Wyatt Earpy polemic against some of his critics.
(Which Wilber may have done on purpose to weed out certain types of perspectives.)
Dialoguing deeper with people expressing those types of objections often reveals they have not
actually become familiar with integral theory or directly Wilbers writings on it, and instead are
reacting to second hand information. Gently informing such objectors of the actual basic
structure of integral theory, and its foundation in inclusivity, can make progress toward
alleviating this barrier.
Another objection is sometimes presented via the horrible phrase too linear, as in
Wilbers model is too linear. Apparently too linear is a term popular in some New Age
literature, and translates roughly as too rational. The obvious way to respond to this is to point
out that one of the important advances of the Integral worldview is that it includes transrational,
beyond rational, modes of cognition and consciousness, whereas the conventional (pre-integral
or non-integral) view is essentially rational-terminal, thus less-evolved, and that conventional
view has caused all sorts of problems. This response can work for those who are able to function
very rationally, but as expected does not go very far for those who operate primarily pre-rational.
Another expression of aversion to AQAL Integral is along the lines of I dont
understand it. This has come especially from more conventionally trained (e.g. Freudian) and
conventionally perspectived faculty. This objection might arise from the view that Wilber, and

all of integral theory, is an academic outsider. Or possibly this arises from past training, to the
effect that transrational and postconventional modes are fantasies. This objection can be difficult
to counter.
An effective way to deal with all the above stated objections can be to use a Socratic
approach. When two Foundations of Integral Studies courses, for different degree levels, were
being taught the same academic quarter, we held a joint live class in which we asked ourselves
as a group to define what the elements of a suitable integral paradigm/method should be. The
class went roughly according to the following outline.
ABC: AQAL Integral Theory as the contextualizing paradigm for CIHS
A: What are the elements of a truly Integral paradigm (method)?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

Inclusivity Integral Methodological Pluralism.


Include both interior-conscious aspect of Reality, and Exterior-physical aspect of Reality.
Include both socialiality-collective aspect of Reality, and individuality aspect of Reality.
Be aware that individuals and collectives develop through nested-inclusive stages.
Include higher stages of development [transrational, transpersonal, trans-conventional]
Include multi-dimensions of being [body, mind, spirit, emotion, morals, values, etc.]
Be typologically inclusive [Myers-Briggs, Enneagram, Seven Rays, etc.]
Be aware of the historical arc and developmental sequence of major worldviews.
Be able to sustain interaction and efforts at the leading edge of socio-cultural evolution.

B: The Foundational paradigm for CIHS, should:


1)
Sustain research areas that may have been marginalized by conventional views [subtle
energies research, parapsychology, higher-stages psychospiritual growth].
2)
Be able to do #1 in a way that is communicative with, conversant with, conventional
academic and scientific worldviews complimentary with them, not dismissive.
3)
Coincide with Hiroshi Motoyamas founding vision for CIHS.
4)
Have some established presence among the broad general culture of leaders in academia,
science, government, society.
5)
Encompass both conventional and trans-conventional views of scientific, psychology,
and religiosity-spiritual growth.

C: Why AQAL-Integral Theory is the best fit:

1)
AQAL-Integral essentially is the points articulated in A, plus more.
2)
It is essentially the same as Dr. Motoyamas mission and principles for CIHS.
3)
AQAL is relatively well-known, accessed and used. There is a large biennial academic
professional conference ITC, and a Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. There are Integral
Leadership development programs based on AQAL. Major corporations and the major political
parties have employed AQAL Theory.
4)
There are AQAL based, and Integral Psychology based programs at numerous regionally
accredited schools. [From CIIS to Harvard]
5)
Although founded by philosopher Ken Wilber, AQAL Integral and Meta-Integral Theory
continues to evolve and broaden via the contributions of numerous leading scholars and
practitioners.
A collapsed version of that ABC outline is now being articulated in the WASC
application process, to contextualize the educational theory of the institute.
Research: Mechanisms and Reality-Theory
As stated in Motoyamas principles #4 and #6, a central theme of research interest is to
elucidate the mechanisms of the correlation between mind and body. As diagramed on the
AQAL map (e.g. Wilber 1995), this translates to the correlation between the interiority/qualia
quadrants (UL and LL) and the exteriority/empirical quadrants (RR and LR). More specifically
integral theorists speak of [e.g. AQAL Integral Scholars Forum, Facebook] actual events in
Reality (things that actually happen) as tetra-arising (four-arising) simultaneously in all four
quadrants of the AQAL map, thus actual events are tetra-correlated in integral theory. The
AQAL quadrants themselves, in a sense can be seen as representing the locus of various fields of
academic study about Reality. (For example, cultural anthropology is in the lower left, physical
anthropology is in the lower right, psychology is largely upper left, chemistry is upper right.)
Also the quadrants represent classes or types of perspectives on Reality (and more
sophisticatedly so via the 8 Zones). In that sense, the quadrants are like partial notions of
maps related to Reality, and the AQAL map thus presents a coherent locus for various aspects of

Reality. But actually Real events cannot be placed in only one quadrant, events tetra-arise in all
the quadrants.
Seen that way, the AQAL map thus categorizes but integral theory generally doesnt
speak about the mechanism or mechanisms that make the correlation, or even whether such
mechanisms exist. Philosophically (Chalmers 1997) therefore, AQAL integral theory could be
consistent with three basic types of mind-body theory: interactionist dualism where mind and
body are distinct and some mechanism enforces their correlation in events; non-interactionist
dualism where mind and body are distinct and the reason for their correlation in events either
remains mysterious or is somehow determined primal cause; or neutral-monism where mind
event aspects and body event aspects arise simultaneously from some more fundamental nondual
substance of Reality. And AQAL integral theory, by simple virtue of having the four quadrants,
is not consistent with two other types of fundamental mind-body philosophy: materialist
monism/eliminative materialism wherein only body/matter exists and mind is an
illusion/derivative epiphenomenon; or idealist monism wherein only mind exists and body/matter
is an illusion.
Given the research focus stated in Motoyamas principles to elucidate mechanisms, we
can place this effort to be operating within either of two philosophical camps, interactionist
dualism or neutral monism. Also, the stratified developmental psychospiritual growth model
articulated by Motoyama is essentially also nondual in final aspect (Motoyama 1981). Then
combining those two sets of concepts we are led to a probably neutral-monist stance. Thus the
CIHS research mission fits well within a generally AQAL integral theoretical context. Further,
in my view, in reality-theory some sort of neutral monism (which can also be seen as NeoWhiteheadean) approach is emerging as the only route toward encompassing and addressing both

the so-called hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers) and the unresolved physical paradoxes
that arise necessarily in the fundamental theory of physical science, quantum mechanics
(Rosenblum and Kuttner 2011). But delving further into that is beyond the scope of this current
paper. (see e.g. Langan 2002, and Mark Forman private communication.)
The AMI device (Apparatus for Meridian Identification), invented by Motoyama, is an
example. The AMI measures the electro-physiological response of the skin to an applied low
voltage square wave pulse (see AMI ref.). The particular points measured are 28 acupoints
around the nailbeds of the fingers and toes called Sei or Well points, chosen to associate with
particular acupuncture meridians that according to Traditional Chinese Medicine relate to
particular organs of the body. Although similar to a conventional galvanic skin response
measure, the AMI also measures the initial rapid response of the electric current flow through the
skin on the scale of microseconds. This before polarization measure, according to the theory
of the device, is then correlated with the strength of the chi energy flowing through the
meridians. In this theory of what is being measured, the chi itself is essentially not empirically
manifest but its function is correlated with the physical functioning of the organs of the body
including the particular electrical response of the skin regions that are empirically measured by
the AMI device.
Note that this theory of chi energy and the mechanisms of how acupuncture works is
different from what we might call the conventional-NIH theory. In 1999, the University of
California Irvine together with the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of
Sciences hosted a weekend meeting Towards a Science of Acupuncture. Stimulated in part by
a paper by NAS member Cho et al. published in the prestigious PNAS (Cho et al. 1998)
seemingly validating acupuncture meridians and parts of TCM theory, the meeting was convened

to summarize the current status of the science of how acupuncture works. During the meeting, a
clear consensus emerged on two points: 1) Acupuncture has been definitively shown to work
in some sense of having a measurable effect in repeatable experiments in both human and animal
studies; 2) No clear physiologically observable correlate of acupoints has been found (such as
nerve bundles or the like) and so probably does not exist. To a few of us at the conference that
was very exciting, because it seemed to clearly point toward a mechanism for acupuncture along
the lines just described as to how the AMI works, where a non-manifest chi energy functions
in correlation with manifest and empirically measurable aspects of the body. Then it was
disappointing when at the end of the meeting a representative from the NIH announced that NIH
is interested in funding studies that would show that acupuncture works somehow as an artifact
of the peripheral nervous system. Whether this conventional-NIH model was chosen to be
consistent with a materialist-monist/eliminative-materialist view of reality which is still common
among many in the scientific community (e.g. Hintz et al. 2003), we cant know. And with
further irony, half of the authors of the original Cho et al. paper later published a partial
retraction in the PNAS journal in which they also noted the (NIH) nervous system model (Cho et
al. 2006. Three of the original eight Cho et al. 1998 authors refused this retraction.).
These debates about the specific mechanism of acupuncture point to unresolved issues in
current fundamental reality-theory (Langan 2002, and Wilber 2009), that also are not fully
developed in basic AQAL Integral Theory. This is pointed toward in British philosopher Roy
Bhaskars (2011) Realist Theory of Science and philosophy of MetaReality. In his Realist
Theory of Science, Bhaskar articulates three nested ontological domains of Reality: the Real, the
Actual and the Empirical, and Bhaskar describes that the most inclusive models of reality would
allow for the possibility that some generative mechanisms of Real events could be fundamentally

empirically non-manifest. In AQAL theory that is akin to the possibility that some subjective
(Left quadrants) events might not have objective/empirical correlates. Wilber (2006) discusses
this possibility in an essay Excerpt G (also Wilber 2000). Motoyamas articulated mission to
elucidate the mechanisms correlating mind and body, might advance by operating in this Realist
Theory of Science, MetaReality philosophy, space.
A few years after the Towards a Science of Acupuncture conference, 2006 the NIHNCCAM (National Center for Complimentay and Alternative Medicine) held a working group
which produced a white paper attempting to define generally what biofields are. Lead author
of that paper, Shin Lin of UC Irvine, described (Lin 2006) two types of biofield energies or
mechanisms: Lins veritable biofields we can put into Bhaskars domain of empirically
manifest mechanisms, and Lins putative biofields we can identify with non-empirically
manifest mechanisms. The NIH effort to associate chi meridians with a physical nervous system
can be seen as attempting to focus only on veritable biofields, whereas the Motoyama effort to
elucidate the mechanisms can be seen as more fully inclusive of the putative biofields which
some of us think is the more interesting aspect. Lin himself (2004, 2007), at his UC Irvine lab,
has carried out experiments comparing AMI device measures with more strictly physical
measures thought to be related to chi such as blood flow velocity and temperature. He finds
good correlation between the AMI chi measures and the physical chi measures, and intriguingly
has found suggestions in the data that the AMI may also measure something more.
Summary
Bringing the AQAL model and integral theory into the foundational context for the
educational and research mission of CIHS will empower the institute to become more sustainable
in the long run, enable the institute to operate better with regulatory-related entities like WASC,

allow a context connected with the broader academic and scientific communities for its
articulated forefront research mission, and sustain and support Motoyamas unique founding
mission and principles for the institute.

References:
AMI Life Energy Analyzer, retrieved from http://www.cihs.edu/AMI/AMI_main2.html.
Beck, D.E. Stages of Social Development. Essay retrievable:
http://www.spiraldynamics.net/DrDonBeck/essays/stages_of_social_development.htm
Bentov, Itzhak (1988) Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness.
Destiny Books.
Bhaskar, Roy (2011) Reflections on metaReality: Transcendence, Emancipation and
Everyday Life (Routledge Critical Realism). Routledge 1st ed.
Brophy, Thomas G. (1991) Does debris from the formation of other planetary systems
impact earth? Icarus, 11/1991.
Brophy, Thomas G. and Rosen, Paul. (1992) Density waves in Saturns rings probed by
radio and optical occultation Observational tests of theory. Icarus, 11/1992.
Brophy, Thomas G. (1998) The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism: An Exploration of
Spirit, Matter and Physics. Medicine Bear Pubs, ME.
Chalmers, David J. (1997) The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.
Oxford Univ. Press 1st ed.
Cho, Z.H. et al. (1998) New findings of the correlation between acupoints and
corresponding brain cortices using functional MRI, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA issue 5, March 3,
95, 2670-2673.
Cho, Z.H. et al. (2006) Correction for Cho et al., New findings of the correlation between
acupoints and corresponding brain cortices using functional MRI. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
issue 27, July 5, 103, 10527.
CIHS California Institute for Human Science, Catalogue, retrievable from
http://www.cihs.edu/

Esbjorn-Hargens, Sean ed. (2010) Integral Theory in Action: Applied, Theoretical, and
Constructive Perspectives on the AQAL Model (SUNY series in Integral Theory). State
University of New York Press.
Hintz, K.J. et al. (2003) BioEnergy Definitions and Research Guidelines. Alternative
Therapies in Health & Medicine, Vol.9, pp 13-30.
Langan, Christopher M. (2002) The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New
Kind of Reality Theory, current revised version retrievable: ccc.ctmu.net
Lin, Shin et al. (2004) Comparison of bioenergy and physiological markers in quigong
and acupuncture research. J. of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, Vol.10, p.1135.
Lin, Shin (2006) Meeting Summary: A Think Tank Working Group Meeting on Biofield
Energy, NCCAM DEM II Office, Bethesda, Maryland. March 29-31.
Lin, Shin et al. (2007) Correlation of the increased cutaneous blood flow with elevated
bioenergy markers from quigong/tai chi practice and heat/massage therapies. J. Alternative &
Complementary Medicine Vol 13, p.905.
Motoyama, Hiroshi (1981) Theories of the Chakras: Bridge to Higher Consciousness.
Theosophical Publishing House.
Rosenblum, Bruce and Kuttner, Fred (2011) Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters
Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Saraswati, Satyananda (1981) Foreword in Theories of the Chakras (Motoyama 1981).
Share International Magazine (circa 1994) Interview with Dr. Hiroshi Motoyama.
Retrievable from archives http://www.share-international.org/archives/healthhealing/hh_adjenergetic.html
Wilber, Ken (2009) Are the Chakras Real? essay in Kundalini Rising: Exploring the
Energy of Awakening. Sounds True 1st ed.
Wilber, Ken (2006) Excerpt G: Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Sublte Energies,
retrievable: http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptG_KOSMOS_2004.pdf
Wilber, Ken (2000) Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy.
Shambhala 1st pbk. Ed.
Wilber, Ken (1995) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution. Shambhala 1st ed.
WASC Getting Started with Accreditation, retrievable: http://www.acswasc.org/