The Integral Shift Part 2: Birth of a New Age

As we have noted, the sep­a­ra­tion between mind and body, self and other, human­ity and nature is deeply imbed­ded in the real­ity of the West, and is a fun­da­men­tal ele­ment of the West­ern cul­tural archive. This cul­tural archive exists as, “…a ‘store­house’ of his­to­ries, arti­facts, ideas, texts and or/images, which are clas­si­fied, pre­served, arranged and rep­re­sented back to the West”; a data­bank that is both the prod­uct of West­ern his­tory, and a cul­tural and philo­soph­i­cal frame­work that West­ern­ers know­ingly and unknow­ingly draw upon as a means to per­ceive real­ity. While we, as West­ern­ers, can rec­og­nize the exis­tence of this archive, our posi­tion­al­ity pre­vents us from actu­ally per­ceiv­ing its exis­tence through an objec­tive, non-Western lens. Even West­ern cri­tiques of the archive exist within the archive itself. Accord­ing to Smith, “Hall has sug­gested that the West­ern cul­tural archive func­tions in ways which allow shifts and trans­for­ma­tions to hap­pen, quite rad­i­cally at times, with­out the archive itself, and the modes of clas­si­fi­ca­tions and sys­tems of rep­re­sen­ta­tion con­tained within it, being destroyed.” (Smith, pg. 44)

The ques­tion then becomes, can we actu­ally resolve the prob­lems cre­ated by West­ern soci­ety while still remain­ing within its cul­tural archive? This is a com­plex ques­tion, and I rec­og­nize that my own West­ern biases will heav­ily influ­ence my per­cep­tions of the issue, to the extent that since my world­view has emerged within this West­ern archive, I can­not actu­ally under­stand a par­a­digm that exists out­side of it, only the­o­rize its exis­tence. What I can do, how­ever, is acknowl­edge the poten­tial of Inte­gral the­ory to be the most likely par­a­digm within the West­ern archive to be able to address the prob­lems cre­ated by it, in a man­ner that is most respect­ful and inclu­sive to non-Western real­i­ties. Because Inte­gral the­ory seeks to under­stand diverse ways of know­ing and being, and rec­og­nizes the inher­ent valid­ity of dif­fer­ent cul­tures and dif­fer­ent states and stages of con­scious­ness, I believe it to be the most capa­ble of such a task.

Inte­gral Phi­los­o­phy and the Spi­ral of Evolution

At its core, Inte­gral the­ory is com­prised of two major philo­soph­i­cal com­po­nents: the abil­ity to under­stand indi­vid­ual and cul­tural evo­lu­tion though a series of devel­op­men­tal stages (known as Spi­ral Dynam­ics), and the abil­ity to per­ceive each stage of devel­op­ment through a four quad­rant lens. The basis of Spi­ral Dynam­ics can be traced back to the Ger­man philoso­pher Georg Hegel, who the­o­rized that, “his­tory unfolds through a dialec­ti­cal process wherein con­flict makes pos­si­ble the trans­for­ma­tion to higher states of orga­ni­za­tion.” (McIn­tosh, pg. 29) These emerg­ing states of orga­ni­za­tion are reflected within indi­vid­u­als and com­mu­ni­ties in the form of val­ues, beliefs, par­a­digms, and their asso­ci­ated phys­i­cal and cul­tural manifestations.

Devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gists later car­ried these ideas for­ward, and sought to under­stand the basis in which con­scious­ness evolves from one stage of com­plex­ity to the next, as well as what dis­tin­guishes one stage from another. Psy­chol­o­gists such as James Mark Bald­win, Jean Piaget, Abra­ham Maslow, and Robert Kegan (to men­tion only a few) rec­og­nized that this devel­op­men­tal process is in fact cross-cultural, and can be seen in both the devel­op­ment of indi­vid­u­als, and in larger soci­eties and cul­tures. Amer­i­can psy­chol­o­gist Clare W. Graves went even fur­ther to the­o­rize that not only does con­scious­ness develop through dis­tinct stages of com­plex­ity, but the stages them­selves emerge in rela­tion­ship to other stages; and all of human evo­lu­tion can be viewed as a con­tin­u­ous, inter­con­nected dialec­ti­cal spi­ral of devel­op­ment. (McIn­tosh, pg. 32)

The devel­op­men­tal struc­tures within Spi­ral Dynam­ics are not fixed and rigid, and can be viewed more like the color hues of a rain­bow than that of phys­i­cal archi­tec­ture. While there exists some ambi­gu­ity within the color hues, there also exist dis­tinct sep­a­ra­tions between col­ors. (McIn­tosh, pg. 36–37) Each stage of devel­op­ment sig­nals new, more com­plex, dis­tinctly dif­fer­ent ways of see­ing the world, and with each new par­a­digm comes a new set of values.

McIn­tosh writes:

Accord­ing to inte­gral phi­los­o­phy, each stage of con­scious­ness is a nat­ural epis­te­mol­ogy, an organic way of mak­ing mean­ing with its own dis­tinct view of the world that arises from a spe­cific set of prob­lem­atic life con­di­tions and their cor­re­spond­ing solu­tions. These stages func­tion as liv­ing dynamic sys­tems that orga­nize both entire human soci­eties as well as the minds of the indi­vid­u­als who par­tic­i­pate in those soci­eties. (pg. 34)

As each new stages emerges in response to the con­di­tions in which it orig­i­nally formed, new real­i­ties also emerge, and with them new ideas, beliefs, philoso­phies, tech­nolo­gies, and cus­toms. As a new par­a­digm fur­ther estab­lishes itself, and seeks to resolve the prob­lems cre­ated by pre­vi­ous par­a­digms, it explores the lim­i­ta­tions of its own struc­ture, even­tu­ally cre­at­ing unique prob­lems and oppor­tu­ni­ties that can only be fully rec­og­nized and resolved by the emer­gence of later par­a­digms. It is impor­tant to note that each stage has pos­i­tive attrib­utes (usu­ally brought forth as means to solve exist­ing prob­lems), and neg­a­tive attrib­utes and patholo­gies (that emerge as the par­a­digm reaches its lim­its of nec­es­sary functionality).

Human Evo­lu­tion from Tra­di­tional to Inte­gral Paradigms

We can now use the lens of Spi­ral Dynam­ics to under­stand the devel­op­ment of West­ern cul­ture, from antiq­uity to our mod­ern time. For the past five thou­sand years, the Tra­di­tional reli­gious par­a­digm has per­me­ated much of the world, orig­i­nally emerg­ing in part as a result of major con­flicts between dif­fer­ent war­ring fac­tions within the War­rior stage of con­scious­ness. As a result of the chaotic, vio­lent con­di­tions of early civ­i­liza­tion, Tra­di­tional con­scious­ness formed as a means to estab­lish a pres­ence of sta­bil­ity within soci­ety. This can be seen in its empha­sis on law, order, social con­trol, and reli­gious tradition.

Tra­di­tional con­scious­ness ulti­mately laid the foun­da­tions of soci­ety as we know them even up to this day, and is respon­si­ble for the cre­ation of gov­ern­ment, the state, the early emer­gence of writ­ing and math­e­mat­ics, and the world’s var­i­ous reli­gious insti­tu­tions. In mod­ern soci­ety, Tra­di­tional con­scious­ness is embod­ied clearly in both Amer­i­can Chris­t­ian con­ser­vatism and fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam. As tra­di­tional soci­ety suc­ceeded in cre­at­ing order out of the chaos, it began to cal­cify into strict, dog­matic ide­olo­gies that came to sup­press any beliefs and ideas that existed out­side their estab­lished doctrine.

For hun­dreds of years much of West­ern cul­ture lived within a tra­di­tional reli­gious par­a­digm that viewed bib­li­cal text as the ulti­mate source of knowl­edge. Nearly all major debates existed within the con­text of reli­gious author­ity; which bib­li­cal texts were more val­ued, and how were such texts to be inter­preted. With the emer­gence of the Ital­ian Renais­sance, artists, philoso­phers and sci­en­tists turned their sights away from lit­eral reli­gious doc­trine, towards the study of nature as a means of under­stand­ing truth. Iron­i­cally, much of these explo­rations were funded and sanc­tioned by the Church, until the point where the find­ings of sci­en­tists came to con­tra­dict bib­li­cal real­ity. From Coper­ni­cus thru Keplar and Galileo, the more sci­en­tists explored the nat­ural world, the less valid the reli­gious sci­en­tific views became.

The­o­ries and obser­va­tions of the behav­ior of our solar sys­tem and other celes­tial bod­ies acted as one of the most pow­er­ful cat­a­lysts for trans­form­ing the Euro­pean world­view. As the helio­cen­tric nature of our planet and solar sys­tem was posited and even­tu­ally accepted as sci­en­tific fact, the tra­di­tional notion that the cos­mos revolved around the earth fell to the way­side, and along with it much of the Catholic Church’s sci­en­tific author­ity. (Tar­nas, pg. 248–261) These major events marked the emer­gence of the Mod­ernist, sci­en­tific par­a­digm that would even­tu­ally spread through­out much of the world, and cul­mi­nate in the French and Amer­i­can rev­o­lu­tions, and Indus­trial rev­o­lu­tion, and the rise of capitalism.

The Mod­ernist par­a­digm emerged in part as a response to the rigid reli­gious dog­mas of Tra­di­tional soci­ety, and with it came a new under­stand­ing of sci­ence, math­e­mat­ics, and nature. Schol­ars and lay peo­ple alike now had access to tools that allowed them to observe, mea­sure, and the­o­rize about the under­ly­ing pat­terns, sys­tems, and struc­tures of the nat­ural world. This gave rise to new forms of tech­nol­ogy and inno­va­tion, all stem­ming from one of Modernism’s great­est con­tri­bu­tions, the sci­en­tific method.

With these new tools of explo­ration came new ways of under­stand­ing the world, as well as new beliefs on the nature of gov­ern­ment, author­ity, and free­dom. This philo­soph­i­cal evo­lu­tion even­tu­ally cul­mi­nated in the rad­i­cal notions of indi­vid­ual rights and per­sonal lib­er­ties, even­tu­ally birthing a global move­ment of social change known as democ­racy. The US Con­sti­tu­tion, the ideas of per­sonal prop­erty and the right to live as one chooses, with­out reli­gious or polit­i­cal per­se­cu­tion; all of these emerged within the Mod­ernist par­a­digm and lie at the core of Amer­i­can and West­ern cul­ture to this day. (McIn­tosh, pg. 48–49)

As the Mod­ernist par­a­digm explored it struc­tural lim­its, and its ideas were taken to their nec­es­sary con­clu­sions, West­ern cul­ture came to be dom­i­nated by extreme and dog­matic forms of exces­sive per­sonal free­dom (as embod­ied in the power of mod­ern cor­po­ra­tions), and sci­en­tific reduc­tion­ism. The exces­sive power of cor­po­ra­tions, and the ubiq­ui­tous objec­ti­fi­ca­tion of mod­ern sci­ence, cre­ated the pri­mary con­di­tions for the Post-modernist par­a­digm to emerge.

Seek­ing a path beyond the life­less, reduc­tion­is­tic world­view of Mod­ernism, Post-modernism longed for a reuni­fi­ca­tion with the nat­ural world, and sought to reestab­lish the sacred­ness of diverse cul­tures and ways of being. The Post-modern par­a­digm exploded onto the global scene dur­ing the Amer­i­can and Euro­pean cul­tural rev­o­lu­tions of the 1960s and 70s, though its roots can be seen in the Amer­i­can tran­scen­den­tal philoso­phies (and other move­ments) over 100 years ear­lier. (McIn­tosh, pg. 54–57)

A major dis­tinc­tion of the Post-modernist par­a­digm is its deep desire for social jus­tice and change, as can be seen in the civil rights, gen­der rights, and envi­ron­men­tal move­ments of the past cen­tury. I believe that Post-modernism marks a cru­cial point in which a large num­ber of peo­ple have begun to shift from the state of sep­a­ra­tion dom­i­nant in both Tra­di­tional and Mod­ernist con­scious­ness, to the emerg­ing state of reunion and interconnection.

While Post-modernism can be rec­og­nized as an impor­tant stage in our evo­lu­tion towards a sus­tain­able world cul­ture, and is no doubt respon­si­ble for some of the most pos­i­tive social changes in human his­tory, it has often failed to pro­vide major solu­tions to the prob­lems cre­ated by the pre­vi­ous stages. A pri­mary rea­son for this, I believe, is that much of Post-modernism’s iden­tity has been formed as a reac­tion against the Tra­di­tional and Mod­ernist par­a­digms. Not only has this cre­ated a state of con­flict between these three par­a­digms, (a nec­es­sary con­flict, in my opin­ion), it has also made com­mu­ni­ca­tion between them often impos­si­ble. Quite lit­er­ally, they can­not “see” into each oth­ers real­i­ties in a clear and unbi­ased way, and instead often resort to only rec­og­niz­ing each oth­ers patholo­gies, while over look­ing their pos­i­tive attributes.

This is where the Inte­gral par­a­digm comes in, to serve as a medi­a­tor and guide to not only the res­o­lu­tion of many cur­rent social and plan­e­tary prob­lems, but also as a care­taker of the greater process of evo­lu­tion as a whole. By its very nature, Inte­gral phi­los­o­phy has access to a much wide set of tools and resources than any pre­vi­ous par­a­digm. Because it under­stands the under­ly­ing pat­terns of human devel­op­ment, and the value base of each stage, it can acti­vate and draw upon the best ele­ments of each par­a­digm in ways that oth­ers can­not. In con­flicts within dif­fer­ent stages of being, Inte­gral the­o­rists can actu­ally “step in” to the real­i­ties in which the con­flicts emerge, and have the expanded aware­ness of the value sys­tems that those real­i­ties rely upon. For these rea­sons I believe that Inte­gral phi­los­o­phy is best equipped to resolve the impor­tant issues addressed by Post-modern con­scious­ness in ways that will honor all par­a­digms involved.

Along with its abil­ity to under­stand the dialec­ti­cal, spi­ral nature of human evo­lu­tion, Inte­gral the­ory seeks to honor the valid­ity of both the objec­tive and sub­jec­tive real­i­ties of the self and the soci­ety. Inte­gral the­o­rist Ken Wilber has con­structed a model of real­ity that views the world through a four quad­rant Inte­gral lens; a frame­work that enables us to per­ceive the diverse facets of real­ity in a holis­tic man­ner, allow­ing us to under­stand the posi­tion­al­ity of dif­fer­ent expe­ri­ences, and ulti­mately giv­ing us the tools to con­nect with diverse paradigms.

Where as many ontolo­gies choose to focus pri­mar­ily on one aspect of real­ity, Inte­gral the­ory attempts to cre­ate a full spec­trum model of under­stand­ing con­scious­ness through this four quad­rant lens. Those quad­rants are defined as the inte­rior and exte­rior real­i­ties of the indi­vid­ual, and the inte­rior and exte­rior real­i­ties of the group or col­lec­tive. The quad­rants are: the inte­rior I (the indi­vid­ual con­scious­ness), the exte­rior I (the phys­i­cal body of the entity), the inte­rior We (the shared cul­ture of the soci­ety or group), and the exte­rior We (the phys­i­cal man­i­fes­ta­tions of the group: the civ­i­liza­tion, its tech­nolo­gies, arti­facts, etc.). (Wilber, pg. 66–70) Because of this attempt to cre­ate an all-encompassing philo­soph­i­cal and expe­ri­en­tial frame­work, I believe Inte­gral the­ory will serve as a guid­ing par­a­digm for future human soci­ety, and will be the foun­da­tion for our next major shift in consciousness.

The Future of Society

I would like to now present a glimpse of what future soci­eties could look like, at the risk of sound­ing ide­al­is­tic and utopian. In our future human soci­eties, life will be based upon a bal­ance of the most ben­e­fi­cial and sus­tain­able sci­en­tific tech­nolo­gies, guided by the inner wis­dom of deeper spir­i­tual con­nec­tions to nature and all beings. Whereas cur­rent soci­ety is based upon the accu­mu­la­tion of wealth and power, future soci­ety will be based upon the edu­ca­tion, self-actualization, and cul­ti­va­tion of higher spir­i­tual real­i­ties within all peo­ple. We will move from a cul­ture based upon the con­sump­tion of goods, to a cul­ture based upon the cre­ation of expe­ri­ences. Our lives will be ded­i­cated to the explo­ration of sci­ence, art, and spir­i­tual unfold­ment, with the goal of hon­or­ing each cit­i­zens’ pro­gres­sion towards per­sonal enlightenment.

Since we will have no need for the cur­rent alien­at­ing eco­nomic sys­tem, our most advanced tech­nolo­gies will be used to actu­ally solve the major prob­lems of our world, and we will have com­mu­nity based, closed-loop sys­tems for food and energy pro­duc­tion, and hous­ing devel­op­ment. My vision is actu­ally quite sim­ple, and in many ways is mir­rored in the minds of futur­ists like Jacque Fresco and Buck­min­ster Fuller. If tech­nol­ogy is a reflec­tion of the con­scious­ness that cre­ates it, then of course these ideas will become more pos­si­ble (I believe inevitable) as more peo­ple begin to awaken to newly emerg­ing stages of consciousness.

So, what would a future econ­omy look like? Admit­tingly, I am not an econ­o­mist, nor is eco­nom­ics my strong suit. How­ever, if our future eco­nomic sys­tem will be a reflec­tion of the val­ues and world­views of the newly emerg­ing, holis­tic par­a­digms, then we might be able to at least spec­u­late as to how it could exist. Author Charles Eisen­stein the­o­rizes the emer­gence of what he calls a “Gift­ing Econ­omy” that hon­ors the per­sonal con­tri­bu­tions and offer­ings of each indi­vid­ual, and rec­og­nizes our greater con­nec­tion to nature and each other. Sim­i­lar to our cur­rent econ­omy in that our per­sonal actions, (the peo­ple we serve and the things we cre­ate), are rewarded with a form of non-monetary and fair mon­e­tary com­pen­sa­tion. In essence, action and reci­procity serve as cur­rency. Through ser­vice to oth­ers we attract ser­vice to our­selves, in a beau­ti­fully nat­ural, pri­mor­dial form of ener­getic exchange.

In future research I will explore more of what this entails, and in the mean time I’d like to acknowl­edge the idea that a more fair, demo­c­ra­tic, sus­tain­able econ­omy is both pos­si­ble and inevitable, and as we con­tinue to evolve, I believe the pres­ence of such a future econ­omy will begin to emerge.

Using his­tory as my guide, I believe that although we now find our­selves in a crit­i­cal, often dis­heart­en­ing state of sep­a­ra­tion, con­flict, and tur­moil, human­ity is on a path towards a greater social and spir­i­tual awak­en­ing, and a bet­ter world is emerg­ing. I also believe that Inte­gral the­ory will play an impor­tant role in the real­iza­tion of such a world, as it rep­re­sents some of the finest ele­ments of West­ern soci­ety, and offers the val­ues and vision needed to cre­ate peace amongst diverse cul­tures and communities.

We can­not fully address the major prob­lems cre­ated by West­ern cul­ture with­out draw­ing upon much of its struc­tures and tools, in par­tic­u­lar its sci­en­tific knowl­edge. Sim­i­larly, we can­not address the prob­lems within and between non-Western cul­tures with­out a new value sys­tem that hon­ors the sacred­ness and unique­ness of all peo­ple. Since Inte­gral­ists tran­scend and include the major frame­work of the West­ern par­a­digm, they are most capa­ble of com­mu­ni­cat­ing within it, draw­ing upon its best ele­ments, and link­ing its tech­nolo­gies and advance­ments with the greater world com­mu­ni­ties. While the Inte­gral par­a­digm has emerged mostly within West­ern cul­ture, it is not com­pletely bound to its frame­work, nor does it solely rely upon it for solutions.

Inte­gral the­ory, I believe, is more capa­ble of address­ing the needs of diverse pop­u­la­tions than the Post-modernist and Mod­ernist par­a­digms because of its abil­ity to “see” within the real­i­ties of these diverse world­views, and rec­og­nize the larger pat­terns of per­sonal and col­lec­tive evo­lu­tion that span across all stages and cul­tures. I acknowl­edge that as Inte­gral­ists we can never actu­ally “see” into any real­ity other than our own, but I believe that since we embrace the valid­ity of these real­i­ties, and attempt to see the intrin­sic value within them, we are most capa­ble of work­ing with them to help solve the diverse issues we all face.

So, my per­sonal goals are now to explore ways to facil­i­tate this greater shift in con­scious­ness, and to explore the knowl­edge, ideas, frame­works, and tech­nolo­gies needed to fur­ther acti­vate this shift in myself and oth­ers. I believe that count­less cit­i­zens are already expe­ri­enc­ing this shift all over the world, so my per­sonal work could be to sim­ply explore the most trans­for­ma­tional ideas and expe­ri­ences, and make them avail­able to as many peo­ple pos­si­ble. The ulti­mate goal of my cur­rent plan is to assist in cre­at­ing a tip­ping point of con­scious­ness, in which these ideas become so com­mon­place among a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of cit­i­zens that major solu­tions nat­u­rally emerge within diverse populations.

Another impor­tant goal is to help this greater move­ment of evo­lu­tion­ar­ies to see just how real these ideas are, and to facil­i­tate greater con­nec­tions amongst diverse com­mu­ni­ties and indi­vid­u­als. By rec­og­niz­ing that we are all part of a mas­sive plan­e­tary move­ment for change, and that a global shift in con­scious­ness is occur­ring, cit­i­zens can sup­port and learn from each other, and gain insight and inspi­ra­tion into their own work.

In my per­sonal life, I have found that an impor­tant key to this trans­for­ma­tion lies in tran­scen­den­tal expe­ri­ences, or expe­ri­ences that tem­porar­ily dis­solve the illu­sion­ary bound­aries of our sep­a­rate­ness. For me, these tran­scen­dent states have been most dra­mat­i­cally expe­ri­enced through the use of psy­che­delics, the prac­tice of yoga and med­i­ta­tion, and the expe­ri­ences of art, music, and dance.

By immers­ing our­selves in expe­ri­ences that tran­scend our ordi­nary real­ity, we tem­porar­ily dis­as­so­ci­ate from our con­di­tioned pro­gram­ming and the lim­it­ing struc­tures that frame our real­ity. In a safe and pos­i­tive envi­ron­ment, we can move beyond these restric­tive struc­tures, tem­porar­ily glimps­ing the essence of who we really are; the ego-less aware­ness, the I con­nected to all things.

The more tran­scen­dent expe­ri­ences we have, the more these expe­ri­ences become a part of who we are, chang­ing our per­cep­tions of self and our rela­tion­ship to the world. If rad­i­cal evo­lu­tion is our aim, then the cre­ation of tran­scen­dent expe­ri­ences, in as many forms pos­si­ble, is an impor­tant key to our transformation.

While I rec­og­nize the scope of the ideas I have pre­sented, I can see no other path for us to take if we are to sur­vive and pros­per into the future. I believe that at our core humans are an inher­ently good species; that coop­er­a­tion and peace­ful coex­is­tence are our nat­ural states of being, and that some­day in our future we will tran­scend the cur­rent state of sep­a­ra­tion, and wit­ness the emer­gence of soci­eties that honor the intrin­sic value of all beings, and the sacred­ness of the nat­ural world.

 

Future Cit­i­zenry, a Thought Experiment:

In prepa­ra­tion for this newly devel­op­ing holis­tic soci­ety, I’d like to posit a few ques­tions to help the reader envi­sion what kind of role they would like to play in our future:

    • What inspires you most in the world? What makes you feel most pas­sion­ate about life?
    • If money was not an issue, what would you do with your time?
    • What are your favorite activ­i­ties? What do you do for fun?
    • What gifts would you like to give the world?
    • If you could change the world in one pow­er­ful and dra­matic way, what what that be?

The answers to these ques­tions point to your future and cur­rent role in the emer­gence of this world community.

 

 

Works Cited

Eisen­stein, Charles. The Ascent of Human­ity. Har­ris­burg, Penn.: Panenthea, 2007. Print.

McIn­tosh, Steve. Inte­gral Con­scious­ness and the Future of Evo­lu­tion: How the Inte­gral World­view Is Trans­form­ing Pol­i­tics, Cul­ture, and Spir­i­tu­al­ity. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2007. Print.

Smith, Linda Tuhi­wai. Decol­o­niz­ing Method­olo­gies: Research and Indige­nous Peo­ples. Lon­don: Zed, 1999. Print.

Tar­nas, Richard. The Pas­sion of the West­ern Mind: Under­stand­ing the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View. New York: Har­mony, 1991. Print.

Wilber, Ken, and Ken Wilber. Inte­gral Psy­chol­ogy: Con­scious­ness, Spirit, Psychology,

Ther­apy. Boston: Shamb­hala, 2000. Print.

William Gazecki. 2006. Future by Design. United States: Inde­pen­dent Production

TEDx­O­jai — Peter Joseph — The Big Ques­tion [Video]. 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4qKAse8388k

Tags: ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply