Reflexive Applications

A few months ago I encountered a chance to be interviewed about a sort of practical applications of the Spiral Dynamics model and its related Integral Approaches. That was just happened unexpectedly and coincidentally. And it was not sure that I was really a suitable person to answer for such interviewing. However, it was also true that that must be one of the valuable opportunities for me to reflect on how to develop such practical applications.

Though my experience on this matter is still partial and quite limited, I made the following writings in such a way to answer the interviewed questions. While the original questions and answers were more specific and detailed in referring to some particular institutes and proper names. But here in this blog I just post the modified version -- modified in such a way that the descriptions including the questions themselves are simplified, generalized; and become anonymous and an essay style.

To read through the following writings, however, first you need be familiar with each Meme color of Spiral Dynamics model and its implications. For this, therefore, while you should visit some famous Spiral Dynamics related sites. But then, just for a quick grasp, you can also visit the following pages within my website 1) Spiral Dynamics Image and 2) Meme Table. These are what I have made and summarized based on my understanding of Spiral Dynamics. And if you can understand Japanese, you can also visit this.


Q1. What are the ways in which you apply the principle of Spiral Dynamics that is so integral to your business? Could you give specific examples of the ways in which these principles are applied at (a) the individual level (b) the group or team level (c) the individual or interpersonal level?

A1. One of the valuable significances that Spiral Dynamics, aside from the other theories and reflexive models of evolutional / developmental views, could present is as follows. It has the multi-dimensional perspectives of micro and macro; and of the growth of the individuals, organizations, and socio-historical-civilizations. And one of the important components to explain Spiral Dynamics is what is called Meme. That is a sort of code that explains the individual value systems / maturity levels, the organizational value principles / life-cycles, and the paradigmatic perspectives of the civilization / socio-cultural settings.

By using such Meme code, then, Spiral Dynamics can map out a simultaneous whole picture where these three (individual, organizational, and socio-cultural) dimensions are fully presented. And in so doing we can figure out a series of specific Life Conditions (not necessarily one but the combinations of several Life Conditions) with which these three dimensions have been struggling consciously or unconsciously. Since Life Conditions are what described in each Meme as the series of life related, existential, and evolutional challenges in the above-mentioned multiple dimensional perspectives, realizing where you (you as the individual, your group, and your community) are placed or have reached so far in your reflexive view through Memes / Life Conditions (See this) is one of the primary requisites to clarify and understand where you (you as the individual, your group, and your community) should be aligned with the right direction of the consciousness evolution or the growth.

In the individual level, what the so-called integral evaluation of the Spiral Dynamics approach uses are 1) requiring the clients to answer the questionnaires (each question implies the respective Meme value but not obviously indicated); and 2) conducting the intensive interview to let the clients speak or write freely (and if possible existentially) by using their own words.

The reasons why we use this two-step approach is as follows: If we use the questionnaires alone to find out their imbedded, internalized Meme value, we have often encountered the incorrect result; the result does not show the correct Meme value the clients must have. It is because of the so-called structure/content gap. For example, if you read the explanation of Spiral Dynamics, then you can probably understand its theoretical contents. And then, for example you can see the ideal characteristics that the Second Tier Yellow Meme can manifest. You can know how the Second Tier Yellow Meme matured person looks, behaves, and speaks like. In short, you can know the "content" of the Second Tier Yellow Meme value. Knowing the "content" of this Yellow Meme, however, does not necessarily mean that even your "structure" has also achieved at the same Yellow Meme level. You can know what the Yellow Meme is; and probably you can even pretend to be the Yellow Meme person. But, even so, you can not live like the Yellow Meme person in a true sense.

Thus, if we rely on the questionnaire alone, we cannot grasp the true maturity of the clients (Memes or Life Conditions they face). If the clients are smart enough and know some extent about Spiral Dynamics as its knowledge, then they can probably choose some questions that indicate the Yellow Meme value, even though they have not been the Yellow Meme yet as far as their "structure" is concerned. In fact, most of the readers, when they read the explanations Spiral Dynamics, tend to believe that they have reached more or less the Orange to Green to Yellow levels if not Turquoise yet. The reason why this misunderstanding happens is the confusion that such readers (and clients) think if they could understand the "explanation" about Yellow Meme, then they conclude that they could achieve at Yellow Meme. But, the truth is that while their "content" is at the Yellow Meme level, their "structure" is not yet at the same Yellow Meme level.

In the field of mathematics, for example, if you can understand the explanations of one advanced mathematical theory, it follows that you could achieve at that advanced level. In the case of Meme understanding, however, this is not the same as such mathematical understanding. To reach the Yellow Meme level is not that you understand the "explanation" of Yellow Meme, but rather that you can live as the Yellow Meme individual.

As for Enneagram, for instance, probably the method of questionnaire can work, because the categorization of its nine personalities is rather horizontal; it is not the matter of "one is more matured than the other." Thus, in the questionnaire of Enneagram, the clients are not bothered by such ego-oriented self-conscious stress as to whether or not and what extent they have already matured etc. On the other hand, in the case of Spiral Dynamics, the Meme categorization is vertical; it does show the maturity level. This means that the higher / broader your Meme can become, the more you are matured and integrated. And if you could understand the "explanation" of the higher Meme, then you tend to think that you have already achieved at such higher / broader Meme level. But as explained above, it is not correct.

It is somewhat the similar case to the religious fanaticism or the ego-inflation of fundamental believers; they think they are superior, enlightened, or saved because they understand and/or believe the "explanation" of their particular doctrine, etc. If, for example, they know the teaching of "love your neighbors as you love yourself," then in this "knowing" they blame (or even kill) their neighbors who do not know (or do not believe) this teaching. Since we are all selfish in one way or another, we like to think that we can see many things by the explanations and the interpretations, but the truth is that we can only know the "extent" that we can see and vice versa. Because of this "tautological reality," such vertical (expanding the worldview) maturity cannot be figured out by the self-answered questionnaires. Ultimately, it is that only the Yellow Meme person can see whether or not the client has been already achieved at the Yellow Meme level; whether or not they pretend to be a Second Tier, Yellow person.

If so, then should those uses who use the Spiral Dynamics evaluation be all in the Yellow Meme level? And if so, who could know on earth that those users have been already in the Yellow Meme level? In reality, those users themselves cannot be free from the above-mentioned ego-oriented self-deception and dilemma, either. How can we go about this difficulty that one can not see one's maturity by oneself? This is the dilemma of the self-evaluate one's own maturity level and even when one evaluates others.

Thus, the second method is the intensive interview and the sort of free-writing or free-speaking exercises using one's own words. It is easy for us to repeat and duplicate what we have learned (it is a way of having, not being if we use the term of Erich Fromm). For example, it is easy for us to describe how the Second Tier Yellow Meme person looks / behaves / speaks like and what his/her personality may be based on his/her own reading about the Spiral Dynamics and some other ethical, religious descriptions. However, if you have to talk your own value systems, aside from those explanations you know about Spiral Dynamics, but by using your own words. It is not so easy. For example, if your interviewer asks you such questions like "What is the most important thing in your life?" or "What is the definition of your success in your life?" And if you answer to your interviewer, "It is my family," or "It is my job," and so on, then, your interviewer has to ask you again "Why do you think so?" Or, even your interviewer should not ask any questions in the first place, but let you choose even the theme itself that you are going to talk about. In this way, a sort of miniature of how you live in your own life has to be manifested. In short, not relying on your way of having, your way of being should be manifested.

In this situation you can not help but show your own value systems and existential commitments to your life and to what you think as the most important thing in your life. This inevitably shows your maturity in one way or another. Of course, it is still easy to say and difficult to conduct this kind of interview for the following reasons: 1) depending on the relationship (trustfulness, rapport, mutual respect, etc.) between the interviewer and the client, still the diagnosis may be changed. 2) And depending on the physical and psychological conditions of the clients, the answers (free-writing / free-speaking) of the client may be changed, too. If the client is in the quite stress-free, optimum condition, then he or she can speak / behave / write as a more matured person. (In the same way, the conditions of the interviewer are also important. It also affects the clients and how they react.) If the client is under the stressful situation and having some personal problems, then the answer would be more negative and cannot show the true maturity that the client is supposed to have.

Thus, though it is a difficult task, such intensive interview is still much better than merely conducting the questionnaire alone. And the bottom line of this approach after all is "To understand the maturity of the person, do not listen to what he speaks, but see how he lives in his life." It is just like saying, "Therefore by their fruits you will know them." (Matthew 7: 20)

And, the diagnosis of the group / team maturity level actually relies on the result of the individual one. If we know the Meme level of each member, then what we do next is focus on the so-called Meme ratio (or Meme portfolio) of the group. For example, if we deal with the fifty members of the group, then we will figure out how many are Green Meme, Orange Meme and Blue Meme, out of those fifty, etc. and will see the so-called center of gravity of this group. If the majority of the members (let's say more then 50% of them) are still Blue Meme. Then, the value system of this group is more based on the Blue Meme (group-centric behavior). Thus, our role is let the members realize their typical (especially Mean) Blue Meme value oriented behaviors; and let them think why and how they are so; and eventually let them suggest their own resolutions to overcome their current Life Conditions caused by the Mean Blue Meme with the conflicts with the other Mean Memes.

Here, please note that the Spiral Dynamics evaluation or approach is not what to provide the resolution or a "magic formula" to enable them to elevate the next Meme level and so on. In the Spiral Dynamics or more generally Integral Approaches as such, the problem caused by their Meme maturity level is actually "their own problem" not someone else's. In this regard, they cannot go to the next level unless and until they can solve their own problem and overcome their own Life Conditions by themselves. We call this stance "We take care of the processes of your problem, but you have to be responsible with the contents of your problem." It is not that we are irresponsible for our consulting and evaluating task; rather, we think this is one of the most effective approaches of being facilitators as far as the vertical growth / maturity of both individual (each member) and group (all members) is concerned.

In the inter-personal level, of course, we focus on the so-called inter-Meme conflicts. In the perspective of Spiral Dynamics, as long as you are in the First Tier Memes, you cannot avoid such conflicts. It is because each Meme is derived from the resolution to overcome the Life Condition of the previous lower Mean Meme. For example, the modern science and technology of Orange Meme was emerged to overcome the pre-modern dehumanized traditional doctrines of Mean Blue Meme. And the post-modern, ecological, environmental, hermeneutic qualitative approach was emerged to overcome the dehumanized materialism and consumerism of Mean Orange Meme. And because of this, Green Meme hates Orange Meme; Orange Meme hates Blue Meme; Blue Meme hates Red Meme; and Green Meme misunderstands Blue Meme, and so on.

These conflicts happen even in the micro individual level. In the group, for example, the individualistic, materialistic Orange Meme rationalistic young employee hates his boss since the mentality of his boss is the Blue Meme old-type traditional loyalist devoting his life entirely to his company and ignoring his family, etc. The Green Meme ecological young employee who is spending her spare time for NPO volunteer works in her community level does not respect her Orange Meme officemates since they have lost themselves in the trend of shallow consumerism, etc.

These cases are just describing the general, simplified Meme-related personality patterns. In the real work place, the more work-related ways of such inter-Meme conflicts must take place. If so, what those facilitators and evaluators can do is let them realize their own Life Conditions; and let them think or find out their own resolutions of how to overcome these Life Conditions. Actually such recognition of inter-Meme conflicts from the higher / boarder perspective is the Life Conditions of Green Meme, which may lead the Green Meme people to the Second Tier if they can successfully overcome their particular problems. But again, we need to emphasize that these are their own problems of maturity; therefore, there is no "magic formula" but they can solve their own problems only when they can fully commit themselves to this problems wholeheartedly and existentially. Only what we can do is to evaluate the Meme and to facilitate the process of their existential problems, while they are committing and struggling with the very contents of their existential problems.


Q2. When you have organizations as your clients, how might you diagnose the stage of their life cycle? Do you have unique definitions for the way in which you conduct organizational consultation?

A2. The general approach of our diagnosis or evaluation is as follows: 1) conducting the questionnaires; 2) conducting the intensive interview of each members of the organization; 3) figuring out the center of gravity of the Meme of each member as well as the whole organization; 4) figuring out the so-called Meme ratio of the organization and indicate the stage of the life-cycle of the organization; 5) conducting the presentation / workshop so as to let them realize their own Meme related problems / Life Conditions. In the workshop, we let them deal with their own (each member and the whole group) Life Conditions and figure out the resolutions by themselves.

Actually it is similar to the approach of Community Development in one way or another. In the awareness phase we let them realize their own problems (Life Conditions) that they have taken for granted. And also we let them realize the fact that these problems have been caused by and/or related to the level of their maturity and value system (Meme). And in the action phase, we let them realize the fact that these problems are their own problem; hence, there is no "magic formula" provided by someone else outside; no one else can solve these problems but they themselves alone have to go about them with their full commitments. And it is also the way for them to leap into the next Meme and actualize their own maturity. And in the follow-up phase we also emphasize the fact that this kind of Meme related problem-solving needs to take time; hence, cannot expect the quick resolution. And also we emphasize the fact that even if they could overcome their own Life Conditions, that is still not the end. Another awareness phase will come out for your continuous, spiral growth and development. But the next time, perhaps, the situation is not unnecessarily stressful (it does not necessarily mean easy, though) since they have already known the whole perspective of the growth and the evolution.

However, it does not necessarily mean easy to go about the next problem. As it is repeatedly pointed out, the higher / broader our maturity level may reach, the more serious and more difficult problems we have to face. For example, the nuclear weapons become only available in the emergence of Orange Meme; such weapons did not exist during the Purple Meme period. Or, rocks do not die, but amebas do; amebas do not get cancer but dogs do; dogs do not commit suicide but humans do, etc.


Q3. How might Integral Approach be implemented in your work? For example, can it be applied for the integration of business work and spirituality?

A3. Just like Spiral Dynamics is part of it, one of the significances of Integral Approach is embracing all the paradigmatic, methodological conflicts in one reflexive model; and showing that there is actually no conflict as to one theory / methodology over another, but it is that each of them is just representing the partiality of the whole pictures. Thus, the important thing or the truth is not "Which is right?" but "Everything is true but partial." As mentioned above in answering the previous questions, in the post-modern, multi-cultural, relativistic situation we have been bombarded by a number of diverse theories, applications, practices, methods, tools, and perspectives, etc. And this fact has bothered the business sector when some companies try to choose which consultation may be correct or more effective; how one of the consolations can work especially when the office environment is multi-cultural and multi-dimensional as far as each member's personal and inter-personal growth is concerned.

In this post-modern confused situation, then, by introducing and implementing the Integral Approach, we can let the clients realize that actually "Everything is available for them." Thus, the important thing is neither "Which is better?" nor "How to cover such everything?" but rather "How correctly to reflect upon the reflexive map of such everything?" and this is the attitude of reflexivity. And, the important part is whether or not they have a correct reflexive map that can teach us the significance and each approach and the mature stance that we do not attach each of them. Indeed, such reflexive attitude is the possibility to lead us to the Second Tier realization of Spiral Dynamics.

And as you have already noticed, this approach itself is quite spiritual. Attempting spiritual practices is not necessarily going to meditation centers, workshop seminars, traditional churches / temples / shrines / mosques, or seeking for your won guru, etc. (while these are also important partially as long as you can avoid the religious ethnocentrism and post-modern narcissistic spiritualism) but rather the continuous effort to place yourself on the reflexive perspective. For, if we stick to the former convenient practices, then, contrary to our intention to have the reflexive, integral non-attachment, we tend to inflate our ego in knowing that we are practicing spiritual exercises in a special conditions and tend to forget the truth that spirituality is also (always already) rested even in our everyday life, not confined to the special occasions, places, practices, and so on.

The way to integrate spirituality and work, therefore, is first try to have an above-mentioned open-mined attitude and humbleness to see "Everything is correct / true but partial." (It is easy to know and possess this knowledge of that way, but it is really difficult to live that way.) And second, try to find the true spirituality in your everyday life and work places. And then third, without attaching to any particular methods (schools, dominations, traditions), find your committed time to contemplate on the true spirituality. Thus, it is not stick to one particular way. (What I explained here might be also the particular way. But again, knowing this continuous self-referential reflection, reflexive attitude would be the key to overcome this dilemma.)


Q4. How such Integral Approach or Perspective, for example, could be applied for some ways in which Eastern and Western ideas have been integrated?

A4. In this Integral Approach or Perspective, we should not be specifically concerned with such dichotomy between Eastern ideas and Western ones. Rather than focusing on the integration of these two extremes, we have tried to work on the very Integration as such. This means that as described above, the priority is place ourselves on the Integral Attitude where "Everything is true but partial" has been fully appreciated. And as the result of this Attitude, it follows that we can also practice the integration of Eastern ideas and Western ones rather from the Second Tier perspective.

The effort of such Eastern / Western integration sounds quite post-modern and/or (Mean) Green Meme. When the Westerners think of the Eastern ideas especially for those Americans in San Francisco (or the West Coast area), these are the so-called Eastern ideas interpreted and re-evaluated by the Western people in the intention of their own self-criticism. When the Westerners have faced the mean side of their Orange Meme such as materialism, consumerism and individualism, they start looking for the Green Meme value as a resolution in the outside of themselves. To overcome their own Mean Orange Meme, they start looking for Green Meme in the Eastern ideas that they have taken for granted for a long while. When they realized that their Orange Meme focused cultures have lost anything spiritual, they start looking for something spiritual in the Eastern ideas.

Thus, as we well-known, a lot of Americans during 1960s (up to the present probably) became so eager to learn the Eastern spiritual ideas about Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamic Sufism and so on. A lot of Americans tried to visit the Eastern countries such as India, Nepal, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, and so on. Or else, they also tried to visit those countries in Central / Latin Americas to seek for something spiritual. Or, even in their own countries they start appreciating the Native American cultures.

All those movements are derived from the Westerners' self-criticism that what they have lost in their Orange / Modern paradigm must be still remained in those Eastern traditional cultures. And they are so eager to reevaluate those Eastern cultures to overcome their own Mean Orange Meme (materialism, consumerism, individualism, modern flatland, etc.). And some Westerners have gotten confused in the pre/trans-fallacy. This means, they thought that something pre-modern or some Blue Meme traditions, superstitions, tribal sorceries, etc. must be "something really Green" that can save them from the Mean Orange Meme.

The irony is that while those Westerns have confused in their Blue/Green Meme (pre/trans) fallacy in their obsessive, narcissistic self-criticism and post-modern reflections, those Eastern people themselves have still been seeking for the Orange Meme based individualistic, materialistic prosperities. This was a sort of ironic twist that while Westerners appreciate the Eastern ideals, those Eastern people still envy the Western cultures. We should be keenly aware of this kind of twist and the fact that this must cause the series of the efforts for the post-modern (Green) Western / Eastern "integration" during the last quarter of the 20th century.

And the recent scene of such inter-cultural efforts in the Mean Green Meme, we can see what is called "strategic essentialism." This is a counter reaction of the Eastern side (not only Eastern but also any non-Western cultures) towards the Westerners' narcissistic appreciation of the Eastern ideas. Knowing the fact that their own cultures and ideas have been appreciated by the Westerners, then, taking advantage of this fact, those non-Westerners try to emphasize the right and the value of their own non-Western cultures more strategically and even politically. It is that those non-Westerners take advantage of the Westerns' self-criticism. Moreover, those non-Westerners also try to criticize the Westerns and their Mean Orange Meme value together with the Westerns who try to overcome this Mean Orange Meme and try to leap into the Green Meme. (Also please note that this effort of the self-criticism by the Westerners themselves is already the Green Meme or even the Mean Green Meme, which tries to attack to anything about Orange Meme and necessarily appreciates the Mean Blue Meme of non-Western traditional cultures.)

And the Meme of those non-Westerners who utilize such situation is not necessarily Green Meme but rather mostly either Blue Meme or Orange Meme. For, their true intention is neither to overcome the Mean Orange Meme nor even to reach the Green Meme multicultural perspectives. But rather, their intention is just to insist their own ethnocentric value (Blue Meme) and align themselves with the Western context of materialism and commercialism (Orange Meme). You can easily think of so-called non-Western, exotic, ethnic artifacts and fashions can be the important profitable items in the Western market places and can be easily utilized by the materialistic intention of non-Westerns themselves

Thus, the attitude of Integral Approach on the "integration" of Eastern and Western ideas is derived neither from such Western self-criticism (post-modern narcissism) nor from the Eastern (Non-Western) strategic essentialism. In others words, we neither intend to introduce the Eastern "spiritual" ideas to those Green Meme Westerns, nor to install the (Orange) Western business scientific theories in those Blue Meme non-Western people.

Probably the post-modern (Green Meme) multiculturalism might be misleading in this point. It might have given an impression that it emphasizes the Oriental exoticism in the context of both Western narcissism and Non-Western strategic essentialism. But then, to be clear, considering the meat of the Integral Approaches, it does not intend to place ourselves on such Meme Green Meme oriented multiculturalism, relativism, transpersonal psychologies, or any Eastern / Western sort of esoteric spiritual excises, practices and so on, so fourth.

Of course, we do not deny the value of those Green Meme based approaches. But again, they are just "partially true and correct." More clearly, our attitude on the Eastern / Western integration is rather to point out those partiality and/or fallacy of the Mean Green Meme based approaches of multiculturalism, etc. and seek for (or let the clients seek for) the truly Integral Second Tier perspective by such above-mentioned, free-writing / free-speaking interviews and workshops etc.


Q5. Were there instances when clients thought the integration of Eastern practices was inappropriate for your work? Could you give examples of when this occurred, and how were the problems resolved?

A5. As I have explained in my answers to the previous questions, the aim of Integral Approach in the "integration" of Western and Eastern ideas is neither to introduce the Eastern ideas / practices to the clients, nor to install the Western practices / theories at them. The aim is lead the clients to the Integral Perspectives where such Western / Eastern dichotomy (post-modern narcissism and/or strategic essentialism) is no longer existing or bothering both clients and ourselves. In this regard, I do not think that the Integral Approach has ever encountered the situation described in the above-mentioned question. This does not mean, however, that we have never encountered any complaints of our clients. More often, what we have encountered is a sort of misunderstanding that the clients do not fully grasp our Integral Approaches.

Based on the first impression that the Integral Approach shows especially on the unique, exotic Oriental implications under the post-modern environment, it is more likely that the clients tend to expect some special Eastern ideas that could work as a sort of "magic formula" to solve the problem of the clients instantly. As I explained above, however, this is really misunderstanding. We neither introduce any Eastern ideas nor emphasize that such ideas (approaches, methodologies, theories and practices) can work as an instant "magic formula," nor lead the clients to the Western / Eastern dichotomy, which is common in the post-modern mentality (Mean Green Meme) or in the ethnocentric exoticism (Mean Blue Meme). This is probably the difficulty the Integral Approach tends to encounter in the first contact with the clients.

Thus, in the first contact, to avoid such misunderstanding and distorted expectation in the clients' side, what we have to do are the following two things.

1) We do not introduce any Eastern ideas and approaches to the clients. Rather, what we do introduce is the Integral Perspective where such post-modern multiculturalism is no longer the serious problems but the soundly integrated. In other words, the Westerners no longer mystify the Eastern ideas and approaches; at the same time the non-Westerners no longer attach the Western ideas and approaches; and they no longer use their own Eastern ideas and approaches in the way of strategic essentialism.

In short, the Integral Approach is the perspective where the Mean Green Meme value can be resolved and to lead us to the Second Tier Yellow perspectives. But of course, it is impossible to lead the Blue Meme traditional people to such Second Tier level in one single move. And yet, as least as the content aspect (not structure) we can introduce such explanation.

2) Also we do not let the clients expect that what we will provide can work as an instant "magic formula" that can solve their problem immediately. Rather, we will emphasize and let them realize that their problem is related to their own maturity level (Meme); therefore, to overcome their problem what they can do is only to wait for their own growth (or the time to be manifested). And their growth is not that we can let them grow, but rather the only "business" that they themselves must fully commit in their own path. What we can do is show them the cause of the problem and let them realize that it is their own problem not our problem. Although we can show the path that they have to go through, but it is the path that they have to walk by themselves; it is not the path that we can carry them on the way. Or, ultimately and paradoxically it is the path that they can go through by letting themselves go.

Perhaps from the Orange Meme oriented perspective, this way of consulting or facilitating looks irresponsible. However, as we know the typical problem of the personal growth in the field of psychotherapy or any counseling, etc. the problem of the growth is the kind of issue that one can never solve unless and until they can fully commit oneself to it (and ultimately or paradoxically unless and until they can fully let go of their very intentions.) And our Integral Approach is let the individuals, the groups, the organizations and the communities climb the ladder of Meme; and eventually let them realize the Second Tier Integral perspective.


Q6. Has your unique approach to your work affected your personal life and in what ways?

A6. Yes, it has. As I have explained so far in answering all the previous questions, the Integral Approach is to avoid such post-modern narcissism (Mean Green Meme) that people appreciate each other's cultures in projecting one's ego-oriented attachments to the other. Again, the way that Westerners appreciate the Eastern ideas in their own self-projection is quite post-modern (Mean Green Meme). Also the way that non-Westerns take advantage of their own non-Western ideas to satisfy their own ethnocentrism is pre-modern (Mean Blue Meme), otherwise if it is materialistically motivated to put themselves in the Western prosperity, it is modern (Mean Orange Meme). Actually such combinations of Mean Green, Mean Orange and Mean Blue have made our inter-cultural approaches difficult to handle and incidentally so does for the filed of area studies.

But, if we focus on the Integral Approaches, then we can clearly recognize where the problems of the inter-cultural approaches have located and how we should handle them. And such Integral Approaches could also help my personal life since I also live in the inter-cultural environments – living in the Philippines and working in the multi-national companies. Because of such Integral Approaches, I can avoid the tendency to stereotype and generalize any nationalities and ethnicities based on my narrow experiential biases and/or conventional shallow perceptions.

In the multicultural environments whether it is in the community, the office, or even the academia, we witness a lot of stereotyping and generalizing one another's cultural aspects especially when the Meme level of each member and its entity (the center of gravity) is quite low. But even in such low Mean Meme environment if you can keep the reflexive Integral Perspective, then you can protect yourself from such negative influences as inter-Meme conflicts, etc.

Another point that our Integral Approaches have influenced my personal life is my attitude on the personal growth. Every time when I encounter the problems in my life, then because of such Integral Approaches, I can think that the problems look like serious problems because of my negative distorted view caused by my immaturity. Also I can think that those problems are actually and essentially my own problems not anyone else's.

In this way, I can be encouraged to (using Nietzsche's words) have the attitude of "love your fate" despite the adversities to be faced for my own growth. I can see such perspective that everything and everyone have been prepared for my own growth and in the same way for the growth of others. Only by accepting such perspective, then, I can courageously without fears to accept everything and everyone as is. And only in this attitude, I can truly understand the importance to connect myself with the spiritual dimension always. It sounds esoteric. But I believe this is the really important point.


Q7. What additional comments would you like to add?

A7. Please note that what I have described in answering all these questions is my personal understanding on the Spiral Dynamics Applications. Therefore, this is not to represent the official policy. Probably some of my statements might be deviated from the general stance that the other practitioners hold. However, I believe that providing my own personal view on this must have a certain contribution to its further understanding. And because of this, also please note that I am solely responsible for what I have stated here in answering all your questions.

Philosophical Attitude

What is the true philosophical attitude? Or more specifically, what is the true meaning of our process of articulation that can ultimately contribute to the progress of our insight to expand the worldview, which can eventually lead us to the stance to see everything and everyone as it is?

This question sounds quite naïve; at the same time, looks an ambitious attitude since it is definitely unrealistic to consider ourselves as some of the great thinkers who have really contributed to the progress of human conscious evolution -- the contribution that can make us a bit or a quite wiser and smarter than we used to be. Although it is unrealistic, this does not necessarily mean that we can ignore the true meaning of such philosophical attitude.

Of course, the philosophical attitude is not that we generate the totally novel theories and practices out of our conventional, ego-oriented, narrow-minded, and dualistic speculations. Rather, the philosophical attitude is to humbly and modestly try to open our mind to make our best efforts to let us follow the trace of the past great thinkers and their best efforts of articulations. However, doing so is not that we simply stand on the tip of such huge iceberg and mindlessly tracing and introducing them so as to make their core thoughts more ambiguous with our unnecessarily interpreted countless footnotes and comments. But rather, doing so is try to our best efforts to transcend and include these articulations as much as possible.

And again, it is not that we should absorb and digest all those past theories, articulated discourses, and practices to produce something totally novel, which are of course impossible. What we try to do is at least to "reflect" upon them. Actually the post-modern attempt was such "reflection." The post-modern people tried to reflect upon all those past theories, articulated discourses, and practices. And of course in such thoughtful attitude, they did not forget to reflect upon themselves, either, which is called "self-reflection."

In my opinion (at least in the context of this writing) self-reflection is one of the "highest" achievements so far in the path to the human maturity. And in this self-reflective attitude, they keep on examining how much what they themselves saw have been distorted; how much they have misinterpreted what they see. Moreover, the act of seeing things is inevitably the act of interpretations, and such everything is indeed interpretation. Thus, we cannot avoid the pitfall of misinterpretations about us, others, and environments, and of course about God.

In the self-reflective attitude of such interpretations, ironically the more we try to be sincere on it, the more we have put ourselves on the so-called kaleidoscopic dizziness of opposite mirror, which leads us to the hermeneutic circle of no true answers whatsoever. Having no answers and yet at the same knowing that we could reflect upon everything and everyone including ourselves, such "having" and "knowing" inevitably lead us to what I call post-modern nihilism and post-modern narcissism. We become nihilistic in knowing there is no answer to understand everything at the same time probably unconsciously we are narcissistic in knowing we are the most matured ones to be able to reflect upon everything and everyone including ourselves.

Now, this is the "true crisis" on our act of articulation and of self-reflection. Indeed, the very end result of our intellectual act which can be regarded as conventional philosophical attitude has been chocking our own throat at the end. What is called the "end of philosophy" or the "death of meta-narrative" in effect becomes one of the manifestations upon such self-destructive intellectual dead-end. Thus, to overcome such "true crisis" of our own intellectualization, what we need is to restore and redefine the "philosophical attitude" as such in a more wholesome and sincere approach.

Indeed, doing philosophy is not the superficial bookish study of contemporary/past philosophers, and philosophies and philosophical theories. Doing philosophy is not to produce another version of interpretations in the midst of the above-mentioned post-modern hermeneutic vicious circle. Rather, doing philosophy, above all, is to seek for the true meaning of philosophizing and in so doing philosophy can be close to the act of true philosophizing as such.

And in my opinion, what we have to do in seeking for the act of philosophizing, first of all, is to be aware of and go about this "true crisis" upon our act of self-reflection per se. In short, put it bluntly, it is the attempt of reflecting upon our self-reflections. And I want to call it the act of "self-reflexivity" in this particular context.

Thus, what we need to do is: 1) to be aware of such post-modern crisis or the crisis of self-reflection; 2) to face the problem or the mean side of this self-reflection; 3) to realize that facing this mean side of self-reflection can lead us to the more sincere reflection on the self-reflections, which can be for our terminology here called self-reflexivity. And only in this attitude we can sincerely place ourselves on the progress of our intellectual (true philosophical) pursuit or we can restore such attitude and resume the path of our consciousness evolution.

More analogically speaking, when we are new-born babies, we were not aware of ourselves. We did not have self-awareness since we did not have clear consciousness per se. But then, when we have consciousness, we could have the self-awareness. Because of this self-awareness, we can see ourselves in front of us and in our own imagination (consciousness). But then, that we see ourselves (others, environments, God too) that way means that we have been divided into two -- the one who sees ourselves and the other who are seen by the one. Because of self-consciousness, we have to see and understand everything and everyone in such divided, separated duality.

To reduce this gap between seer and seen in the duality we have made a lot of numerous interpretations to explain and articulate ourselves (as well as; our world, others, environments, and God). And yet, the more we try to produce the interpretations, the more the gap has been expanded and gotten complicated. And finally we have realized that the very act of interpretation itself can not reduce the gap, rather it is the very reason to make a gap at the first place since the birth of consciousness (self-awareness). Then, we have despaired with a bit of arrogance in thinking we are the ones to know this truth. We have become nihilistic and narcissistic.

Yet, let us recall the fact that there was a certain "breakthrough" when we have transformed from "being unconscious baby" to "a man of self-awareness." Knowing this transformation, it is not so unrealistic to think that there will be another "breakthrough" for us to overcome this present dilemma of self-awareness. Indeed, the function of our self-awareness has shown its own limitation and mean side at this moment finally. In the act or the effort of self-reflexivity, restoring the true attitude of philosophizing, then at least we can sense a subtle beginning of the next breakthrough.

Theoretically when we were an unconscious baby (when we were the residents of Garden of Eden), we were able to see everything and everyone as it is unconsciously just like other animals, we were the part of the universe. And because of the self-awareness, the birth of consciousness, we have become the ones to see everything and everyone only in the separated dualities, while there are a lot of contributions in this dual separation such as having the "free will" as one of the most previous gifts from God, we could control and cultivate the world in one way or another.

Because of "free will," we are no longer the puppet of God and of the universe. However, because of "free will," we have had our free will not to see God or our will to see God only through our dualistic interpretations, subject-object separations.

This is one of the biggest ironies. Because of self-awareness, birth of consciousness, and free will, we have started questioning "Who I am," "Where I came from" and "Where I will go," etc. In other words, because of self-awareness, birth of consciousness, and free will, the very act of philosophy and philosophizing (or ultimately any intellectual activities) has taken place.

Probably the next "breakthrough" will be to overcome our duality and subject-object separation. We do not know how this will happen; however, we can expect that another transformation will be similar to such way that the transformation from "being an unconscious baby" to "a man of self-awareness." Probably this will be the transformation from a man of self-awareness to a man of something else... a man of full-consciousness, awakened, enlightened, and so on.

Beyond Polarity

As well-known, the Yin-Yang relation is a symbol of polarity in the teaching of Taoism. This symbol, however, should not be confined to symbolizing a mere conventional mundane doctrine of Taoism, which is quite far from what Lao Tzu truly taught in his writing, Tao Te Ching. The so-called conventional Taoism practiced mainly in the level of the magic / mythic membership religiosity is the teaching upon the worldly benefits such as material prosperity (how to become rich) and physical health (long-lasting life), etc. Using the Spiral Dynamics terms, this is merely the Blue to Orange Meme value.

Needless to say, we should not emphasize the Blue to Orange Meme value alone, even though we are in the practical business world; even though we have to address to the profitability of the business sectors; and even though we have to consider our own profitability in one way or another. But rather, what the Yin-Yang symbolism can imply, by intentionally objectifying such polarity per se, is the more reflexive perspective.

The Yin-Yang symbolism is not to attach to this principle of polarity and dualism, but rather (knowing and observing such very principle) to detach from this very worldly movement and reach the reflexive perspective.

In any given situations, if we focus on one particular value alone, such one side approach will inevitably lead us to a certain imbalance. If we try to emphasize the masculine (Yang) aspect, then our effort to emphasize this one side aspect alone will eventually invite the feminine (Yin) aspect, which we did not intend in the first place. More generally, attaching to one side too much is conversely inviting and inevitably emphasizing the other (and vice versa). In short, attaching one too much produces the others eventually. Emphasizing black color too much is actually inviting the recognition of white color at the end.

Furthermore, we can easily notice that seeing God under such polarity will inevitably invite the features of non-God such as existence of devils, evils, demons, and exorcism, etc. Seeing God in the principle of polarity coincide with seeing what is not God. This is one of the most dangerous pitfalls in our spiritual religiosity. The truth is that God is beyond polarity. But then, without noticing this truth, as soon as we see God in the polarity, we fall in the dangerous magico-mythical view of religions, which is the cause of all religious, ideological conflicts and cruelties.

We should note that true God is what can never be seen in such polarity; He is that which can never be objectified. Thus, it is correct to say that God is no-where (therefore now-here and everywhere) and is never seen, but God just is (He sees us at the same time seen by us within); For, He is indeed beyond polarity and duality. This is why; "God says in the Scriptures, I will destroy the wisdom of all who claims to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much." (1 Corinthians 1:19)

According to Lao Tzu, this Yin-Yang polarity is the basic principle of any processes in the world and even that of those intellectual interpretations by which we can produce the diverse kinds of theories, applications, practices and methods, etc. Ultimately, what we can achieve at the final moment would be a certain transcendental realm where nobody attaches anything but embracing everything and everyone.

But of course, such attitude sounds so esoteric especially in our everyday business practices. But then, even though it sounds esoteric, it is still important for us to keep in mind of such "spiritual perspective" in our everyday business practices. Especially in the contemporary multicultural environments we have been bombarded by a number of diverse business theories, applications, practices, tools, methods, and many other (both main and peripheral) socio-cultural perspectives and value systems. Such kind of bombardments have bothered us a lot and become the cause of our stressful life situations, which is called Life Conditions in the Spiral Dynamics terminology

Considering such Life Conditions particularly that Mean Blue Meme (religious, ideological conflicts and cruelties), Mean Orange Meme (materialistic consumerism), and Mean Green Meme (nihilistic, narcissistic value-relativism) have been creating a lot of serious conflicts and stresses in their inter-Meme conflicts, the broader and more reflexive perspective beyond these inter-Meme conflicts is necessary. In the reflexive perspective both horizontal (ontological, epistemological, and methodological) perspectives and vertical (cognitive, evolutional, and developmental) perspectives should be integrated in the micro (individual) and macro (collective, socio-cultural, historical) dimensions.

One of the key attitudes in such reflexive, integral perspective is that "Everything is right but partial." In this attitude we can avoid the so-called ego-oriented tendency to attach to one particular value, theory, application, practice, and method etc., which will always be the cause of conflicts and stresses that unable us to align with the true authentic direction or process towards our consciousness evolution.

Reflecting on the non-dual detached attitude of Lao Tzu, the Yin-Yang symbol should be rather appreciated as one of the symbols that can present such Reflexive, Integral Non-Attachment.

Everything, Everyone As Is

Often we hear such spiritual advice that a key to our true maturity is how to see everything as it is; and understand everyone as he/she is. Of course when we look at a glass of water in front of us, it is easy to see it as it is. When you meet a friend of yours in a certain occasion, then it is also easy to understand this person as he/she is, otherwise; it may be difficult to recognize the person as your friend in the first place. Strictly speaking, however, in such a simple perceptual recognition we have had distorted such view that these items and/or persons are placed in front of us. But more often, the difficulty for us to see things and/or persons as they are, is to take place when we try to put "meanings" on these things and persons.

Such "meanings" have been quite often consciously or unconsciously derived from our ego-oriented expectations and desires. Actually that is the cause of our arguments, or else the cause of sufferings. As the Buddha has pointed out in such a way that ego is the cause of desires that is the cause of suffering; hence knowing ego is just illusion is the end of suffering that is the path to awakening and enlightenment. Probably it is not easy or even unrealistic for us modern (or postmodern) people to accept the fact that ego is just illusion. Since the Birth of Consciousness we have had our own self-awareness that has differentiated us from the rest of animals which are part of the environments and God. That self-awareness has separated us from the environments and God.

Because of the Birth of Consciousness, we can no longer sense our Oneness with the environments and God, but only can see them in front of us; and can imagine in our consciousness. Suppose the environments and God are the Ultimate Totality and Wholeness, what does it mean that we can see such Totality and Wholeness only in front of us or in our conscious imagination? It is an unfortunate distortion and paradox that we can see the Ultimate Totality and Wholeness only in such way that we cannot feel them as our own reality, but as the separated, signified symbols and concepts; hence we see ourselves as the separated, signified symbols and concepts, which is called ego.

Indeed, since the Birth of Consciousness (metaphorically speaking since we have left the Garden of Eden) not only the environments and God, but even we cannot sense ourselves in such Ultimate Reality; we just see ourselves as the separated compartment; hence we also see others in the same way. As the result, we can no longer see the truth that everything and everyone are interconnected in the Ultimate Reality. Such compartments of ourselves and of others keep on bothering us. It is because we need to keep placing our meanings and interpretations upon these compartmentalized items. And these meanings and interpretations endlessly and kaleidoscopically keep on changing and transforming; sometimes based on our desires and expectations; and sometimes against them.

If these items (reality) can fit our interpretations and expectations, then we are happy. If not, then we are unhappy or frustrated. If our interpretations and expectations can be the same as the others, then we can agree with those others. If these are different from the others, then we have to argue with or sometimes even fight (or worse kill or killed by) those others. All in all, the problem is that such everything and everyone (ourselves, others, environments and God), while these are ultimately being interconnected, have been separated; therefore, such everything and everyone can be seen only through our fragmented, unreliable compartmentalized, kaleidoscopically changing shadows. These are just like "a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind." (James 1:6)

If we try to follow such spiritual advice that seeing everything as it is and understanding everyone as he/she is, what could be the modest first step to practice this advice? The first one could probably be having an open-mined attitude and being humble. The Scriptures say that "God resists the proud. But give grace to the humble." (Proverbs 3:34) If you do not stick to your own opinion and interpretation, but maintain an open-minded attitude to accept many other possible opinions and interpretations, you will be no longer bothered by your ego-oriented desires to insist your right position. (But of course this is not to have the value relativistic nihilism). Trying to be right will lead us to the conflicts, but being kind and acceptable can lead us to the peace. Using Gandhi's words, "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."

We do not have to fight over which can be the best way to peace. If peace is the condition that nobody fights one another, then the ideal, ultimate resolution is that each of us stop fighting; merely stop fighting even for our own interpretation of peace, for "our way to peace." Fighting for your own interpretation of peace is not peace, but just ideology. Ideology is one of our ego-oriented attributes together with the magic-mythic religious faith, fundamentalism, ethnocentrism, and nationalism etc. or even the human / social scientific theories if we are not aware of the paradigmatic, methodological limitations and concerns.

True peace is not rested on a particulate group-centric homeostasis – meaning, not on the triumph of a particular group. True peace is rested on the sense of Oneness where all our separateness has been resolved. It sounds too naïve and ideal. Probably it is particularly when and if we consider ourselves nothing more than the separate self. Still, it is important to be aware of such different dimensional perspectives.

We pray and meditate everyday; it is not because of seeking our practical benefits, but because of our sincerity to keep us aware of the spiritual perspective where our ever-longing and ever-lasting Oneness has been rested and already always embracing us whether or not we notice. Thus, our modest step to become an open-minded and humble is actually the same as praying and meditating as such; these are the important steps for our consciousness evolution.

Meaningful Social Actions

How do you understand meaningful social actions?

Based on our discussions so far (from Social Reality to Institutional Knowledge to Reflexivity to Self is not Substantial), it seems to me that there must be the more meaningful social actions than the so-called conventional social actions that can be seen everywhere in the world and mostly ideologically, ethno-religiously or materialistically involved. As we have seen, usually people tend to see the society as what is given and placed in front of them. Social actions always contain the certain intentions to change the society based on what the people believe to be better. Such intention is meaningful and must be one of the important steps to prepare the basis of civil society.

In civil society everyone has a sort of public awareness that he or she has to be the member of the society; and that the conditions of the society are depending on the participation and the commitment of each member. But in this process what we have to notice is that the society we recognize and experience, or more strictly in this context, so-called our "social reality" consists of the institutional facts, which are made of our institutional knowledge. And more importantly we have taken for granted the fact that such institutional knowledge has been imbedded in our mind unconsciously.

As we have seen, the value of the paper money or the monetary reality is heavily supported by the quite particular institutional knowledge, but we have taken for granted it or even totally forgotten it. There are a lot of social values that are based on the institutional knowledge and yet we tend to think these are naturally given attributes and non-agentive functions. Put it bluntly, what is right and valuable in a particular social reality may be bad and even harmful in another social reality. If we are aware of the institutional knowledge to some extend, then at least we can predict such difference when we put ourselves in the different social reality. Of course, the social reality is dynamic and ever changing just as the context is ever created depending on how the participants of the groups communicate one another. Thus, if we know both tendencies, then at least we can see our value is not absolute but it is context-based, and at the same time we can also see our value and someone else's value can be reconciled when both sides can create the emergence of the new context through the sincere, constructive interactions since it is dynamic and changeable.

If the social actions do not have such thoughtful understanding, then the social actions just create the social conflicts even though their subjective intention is good. Having good intentions is not enough to make our social actions really meaningful. What we need to do is to be aware of how our good (or unconsciously problematic) intention has been derived from our institutional knowledge. Such self-awareness can be never achieved without having the careful reflexivity.

For example, you believe in the particular religion and you are familiar with all the doctrines and theologies of the religion and can have the strong passion on how this religion (or it is the absolute truth for you) can save the world. These kinds of religious knowledge can be kept in your mind and you can be a good believer of the religion and you start some sort of missionary works or social actions to save the world and love the people in the world. In using the term of our present discussion, then, what you have done is the self-reflection only in these religious social actions. You have not yet done the self-reflection on the self-reflection, which, as we have seen, the self-reflexivity. This is why; even if your intention is good and you really love people around you, when you force those others who are not the member of your social reality to change their religions without any reflexive thoughtfulness, contrary to your intentions and kind efforts, you may have created the conflicts. Actually that is what is happening allover the world nowadays.

It is not merely the matter of religion. It is the matter of all kinds of social reality. Thus, what we really needs is not to have another social reality, but to understand the meaning of social reality philosophically. It is one of the important roles that philosophy can contribute to the world. And this is the attempt to put ourselves on the right path to the further evolutional dynamics to "become a human being."

Self is not Substantial

If the self does not have substance, is it possible to assert autonomy and responsibility, free will and intentionality?

To discuss this question, just as Searle pointed out in his book, Mind, Language, and Society, we have to re-think of the so-called mind/body problem. The problem is the ever-discussed issues throughout the history of Western philosophy such as whether or not mind is substantial; whether or not mind can be reduced into the physiological substances, etc. and if these binary questions – which side we should rely on so as to understand the core of our existence and the world where we live. And in such dichotomy between mind and body, we have to face a kind of dilemma:

If mind is the core of our existence and its reality is internally rested and cannot be tangible, then our true existence is a kind of spiritual or epiphenomenal and our bodily dimension is just what should be ignored. Or on the other side, if body is the basis of our core existence, then it is inevitable that we tend to have the materialistic stance or that we should not rely on anything conceptual – what we can trust is something visible and tangible. Unconsciously or consciously the basic attitude of logical positivistic and quantitative approaches may have such kind of tendency. They call the dimension of mind "the ghost of the machine." Thus, it is no wonder that such stance can never discuss the so-called dimensions of soul and spirit.

The attitude to enforce the body side was the source of natural sciences and their logical positivistic methodologies, while the attitude to enforce the mind side was the basis to cultivate the human sciences such as aesthetics, ethics, religions and some part of psychologies. Social sciences have been located ever since between both sides and have been suffered by the dilemma or ambivalence whether their methodologies should be qualitative and quantitative.

Incidentally, it seems that both mathematics and logics stand in a certain unique position that is limited in the dimension of mind only. The mathematical truth, while it is imaginable in our mind, can be never (in the strictly mathematical sense) existed in our physical world. For example, the figure of perfect triangle can never exist in our physical world, while the image or the concept of this figure can be retained in our mind as the result of a logical construction and of an intuitive esthetic sense. Or, the concept of "infinite" is not what is touched in our physical world, but it is one of the indispensable and quite basic ideas of our mind. The mathematical and logical articulation of the world is compatible in the methodology of natural sciences. And it is a kind of trans-cultural tendency to objectify the worldly phenomena; such value-free explanations can be one of the most convenient and of course pragmatically useful medium of articulations in the modern world. In short, both mathematics and logics are the basic meat of the quantitative approaches. Then, some other articulations have tended to be ignored in the modern world, which are mythical explanations, aesthetic explanations, and religious explanations of the world, etc.

The discussion on the mind/body problem has over-simplified the way how we understand the world around us. This discussion has divided it only into what we can see and what we cannot see. But, the way we understand the world is not that simple. This is not that simple like whether or not God can be seen. Rather, the way we understand the world around us has the multiple dimensions from matter, to body to mind (and if you agree) to soul and spirit. Each dimension has its unique way of understanding the world around us. It is not that one single dimension is absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong. All of them are somewhat complementary. And if you agree, it is said that there is an evolutional include and transcend hierarchy from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. It is not that the way of understanding the world should be either mind or body, but it is rather that the way should be from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Knowing this fact, we can see how we have been too much simplified the ontological, epistemological issues on the world.

Using this multiple dimensional approaches, then, we can transcend the ever-lasting methodological arguments. For example, most of the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, etc. are under the dimension of matter. Or, more strictly the dimension of mind that focuses on that of matter is the approach of natural sciences. And the medical sciences and biology etc. is the dimension of mind that focuses on that of body. In short, we can say that scientific attitude is rested on the dimension of mind that tries to articulate the other dimension in its own way. Probably it is also possible that the dimension of mind tries to articulate that of soul and spirit and such approaches can be called the study of religions, some of psychologies, and ethics, etc. When we simply feel or understand "beauty," such sense of beauty can be differed depending on each dimension – it may be the physical-sensory perception (body), the mathematical intuition (mind), the perfect ethical reconciliation (soul), or the mythical reunion of the transcendence (spirit).

Considering the discussion above, then, how can we clarify the definition of self in the present context? As we also discussed in the previous questions, the sense of self is uniquely held by the humans because only we humans can have the sophisticated communicative tools called symbols, especially language. By using these symbols, we can have the reflexivity that can reflect on our own reflections and in doing so we can have our own consciousness in which the sense of self can be emerged. As mentioned above, we do not have to be bothered by the question whether or not such consciousness is substantial or not – whether it is the ghost of the machine or not. It may be the "ghost," but this ghost is realistic enough to support even the existence the machine that it comes from. Both are necessary but not either the ghost or the machine. And being or becoming either of them is not enough. Only if and when both (moreover, the multiple perspectives) of the ghost/machine can be recognized, then the very integration of the existential entity can be fulfilled.

Also as we have discussed already, social reality is constructed in our mind and more totally our consciousness that contains the multiple dimensions. Such social reality is also regard as the institutional facts that are based on our institutional knowledge. In the level of matter, the knowledge is based on the non-agentive functions. As the levels of each dimension are inclusively evolved, the "mode" of such institutional knowledge is also transformed.

For example, water is just naturally given water in the level of matter; the mode of its knowledge can be transformed into the coldness of water or the sound of water in the level of body. In the level of mind if it focuses on the matter level, it can provide the knowledge of chemistry – water is called H2O. In the level of soul if it focuses on the body level, a certain ethico-aesthetic values can be articulated based on the flow of water. When you meditate in front of river and that river can give you a certain profound insightful wisdom, your understanding on the water that is filled and flowed in the river is done in the dimension of soul or even spirit. In any case, what is important is all levels are necessary in one way or another. In one single level we can never achieve the full understanding of the world around us including our own selves.

In the materialistic understanding of the world we tend to forget the fact that the world we experience is institutionally constructed and because of that the world is located in our consciousness. Then, we tend to think the world is just given as it is as the natural object in front of us; hence we tend to think that the world is what we can control or can be controlled just like a sculpture curves a piece of wood. We tend to think the world is outside us. It might be partially true, but the social fact in which we really understand the values of the world is indeed institutionally constructed by our consciousness. Such values of the social fact are heavily relied on our institutional knowledge, which is what we are sometimes not aware of.

In this situation we tend to have the so-called double deceptions. The first deception is that we think the world is outside us and only materialistically shows the reality, so that the self (which is considered as useless in this materialistic setup) and its free will and responsibility have been neglected. The second deception is that since the world is outside us, the way we can influence the world is the direct subject-object relation only – controlling or controlled and the fact that the world is actually institutionally constructed in our language use is neglected too. The way we can really influence the world is not the way that one control the other that is in front of one. But the way that one can be aware of one's institutional knowledge that has been imbedded in one's mind.

Thus, even though self is not substantial, which is not important to see whether or not self can have its free will, responsibility and intentionally. Rather, what is important is that first we have to be aware of the fact that self is not substantial and then paradoxically that is the necessary condition that self is the important factor to recognize that the social fact is institutionally constructed. Only in this recognition self can influence the world not through the controlling/controlled materialistic way, but through continuous reflexivity that can expose our taken for granted institutional knowledge.

Reflexivity

Probably animals may also have their own internal domains to some extent. Animals can imagine what they see and perceive. Otherwise, we cannot say that they also communicate each other by using some kind of primitive sign language. Even bees can communicate one another. One bee that can find the location of the flowers can tell the other bees in their nest by using a certain communicative tool called "dancing." This dancing has been highly systematized, so that the other bees can locate the subtle difference on how the particular flowers can be approached. While it is quite systematized, however, this tool is too mechanical to use some other purpose such as, for example, expressing the feeling of bees, etc. Some particular behaviors in any insects and animals can be considered as the moves of their courtship. But, such moves are too mechanical to allow the variations of their own interpretations. These communicative tools can be used as signs, but never be used as symbols.

What is the difference? While signs have only one on one signifier/signified binary relation, symbols can have almost infinite variations of its own interpretation. In other words, while sign has only one meaning of each sign, symbol can just show the open-ended possibility to be interpreted in any ways depending on the context. Moreover, using symbols can create the context, which can be continuously updated as the interpretations can be differed.

That is one of the crucial differences between animals/insects and humans even though both have their own communicative tools. Because of such difference, the tool of human communication is called language and requires not only reflection, but also reflexivity. What is reflection and what is reflexivity? What is the difference between both? The answers can be figured out based on the above-mentioned difference between sings and symbols.

For example, when a bee has come back to her nest and start dancing so as to show the other bees the location of the flowers, what the other bees need to do is to understand the "meaning" of her dancing. Due to this mechanistic system, the dancing has several combinations. In this sense, the other bees have to reflect on the particular dancing. Once they understand the "meaning" of the dance as keeping in "mind," they go out of the nest and try to approach the flowers that the first dancing bee "taught" them. Although the "communication" may be quite simple and primitive (in a way it is amazingly sophisticated as one of the natural phenomena) a certain extent of reflection must be required. Although the mechanism of the memory may be different from us humans, it is truth that the particular information had to be retained and stored in somewhere (probably in the "brain" of the bees) in the meantime at the time gap after they saw and understood the "meaning" of dancing until they find the flowers while they are flying.

In the same way, animals also have the similar but more advanced capacity of the reflection. This can remind us of a dog of Pavlov. If we always feed a dog with the sound of bell, then eventually the digestive function of the dog's stomach can be automatically activated even without seeing the food but with the sound of bell alone. Although it is quite simple and primitive, it is also true that the physical reaction of the dog has been conditioned by particular information, the sound of bell. And this sound of bell can be considered a sign that enable both dog and his feeder to make a simple communication to some extent.

The more general example is that we can see a dog is happy or hungry when he tries to look at us and moving his tail and the dog also knows that his breeder can understand the meaning of his gesture, so that he can tell his breeder that he is happy or hungry. This is the reflection of the dog. His tail is used for one of the communicative tools between the dog and his breeder. But it is not yet reflexivity. Both insects and animals do not have the capacity of reflexivity.

Why? Because while the dog tries to move his tail for his breeder to understand that he is hungry or happy, he is not aware of his own intention of doing so. His behavior is not intentional. Or else, even though it can be called intentional in some sense, this "intentionality" is so spontaneous and still instinctive. That is why; the dog cannot "pretend" to be happy in his "intention" to get the food from his breeder. Pretending is possible only when he knows or can think of what is doing. More strictly, pretending is possible only when he is aware of his own reflection and such awareness is the level of reflexivity. In a word, reflexivity means the reflection on the reflections. When the dog is angry, he looks angry and expresses his anger spontaneously. The dog can not pretend to be happy by controlling his emotion while he notices that he is angry. Of course, the trained dog can be behaved and disciplined. But this is not the kind of self-discipline derived from his reflexivity.

Thus, while holding so-called instinctive and spontaneous "intention" is possible among some "intelligent" mammals such as dogs and chimpanzees etc. they cannot have the more advanced level of intentionality, which is derived from the reflexivity, the self-awareness of one's intention. And, such reflexivity (the self-awareness of one's intention) is closely related to the concept of time. For example, the capability of "planning" is held only by humans. Planning is the behavior based on the self-awareness of one's own intention. In the same way, the retrospective thinking is also the self-awareness of what one was intending in the past. If the capability of reflection is limited to the extent of instinctive and spontaneous reactions, then it can not have the temporal, chronological perspective, while the capability of reflexivity can have it and accordingly provide the more precise special perspective too. And because of that, the capability of reflexivity is the one to provide the "rich internal world" in the consciousness of humans. For, self-awareness means playing a kind of mental movie in our internal domain. It is that we see ourselves in "another world" that has been constructed in our mind. And actually we tend to consider such "another world" as the more realistic world. Or rather, because of such reflexivity, we can no longer experience the world as it is unlike other animals – this is why; it is difficult for us adults to become so spontaneous like newborn infants.

Because of reflexivity, we can experience the world through our interpretations. In other words, the world is what we perceive and what is called social reality and institutional fact. It is started from our own mind or consciousness, but this has become a so thick lens that we perceive and experience the world. We can no longer distinguish the inner world from the outer world. It seems that we can distinguish this difference quite easily. But it does not. As we have discussed previously, we have taken for grated the fact that the world we experience is heavily reply on the institutional knowledge. We have been lost in the midst of our own diverse interpretations of the world. The world we experience has been constructed within us and by our diverse interpretations based on the imbedded institutional knowledge. But then, since it is imbedded, we tend to forget this truth that the reality is constructed.

In the Buddhism it is said that life is suffering because life is distorted by human desires. This somewhat moralistic statement also shows the fact that the world has been constructed because of reflexivity. For example, if you cannot be satisfied with your job and have been suffered and frustrated by this fact, then the cause of your suffering and frustration comes from the institutional knowledge that has been imbedded in you unconsciously. If you do not care about what kind of job is supposed to be prestigious for you and so on, then your suffering and frustration may be disappeared. This is called "detachment." But in our present context we can say that you are free from the institutional knowledge imbedded in you unconsciously, or at least you can be conscious of such knowledge that the world has been constructed. Probably this realization is considered as one of the awakening steps in this religion.

Using the mythical metaphor in the Bible, when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, they are so spontaneous that they could be totally free from any kinds of sin and suffering just like other animals. Literally and metaphorically they were the residences of the kingdom of God; as one can never enter the kingdom of God unless one becomes like a child. But once they have eaten the fruit of wisdom (probably it should be called the fruit of knowledge), they have had institutional knowledge and the world as it is has been transformed into the world interpreted by their knowledge, and yet they are not aware of this transformation. Then, suddenly the world looks cruel to both of them. The world is no longer the oasis that protects them, but the enigma that forces them to do the continuous interpretations.

The more they try to interpret the world, the more the world become elusive and the causes of sufferings and frustrations may be accumulated. For, the interpretation is relied on the limited knowledge of humans. Indeed, trying to escape from the imbedded institutional knowledge is just to create another set of institutional knowledge. That is why; it is often said that in the most of the world religions or spiritualities to cease the suffering of the world derived from one's ego-oriented interpretations, one has to restore the sort of eye of God or of Spirit that can see the world again as it is.

In the philosophical perspective, however, such religious statements might sound like neglecting the human efforts as to how to cope with the above-mentioned institutionalized reality. In fact, the most of the religions, despite such valuable instructions to be free from the institutionally oriented sufferings, the reality is that those religions themselves have been the very sources of the somewhat harmful or sometimes even cruel institutionalization and of its knowledge such as doctrines and ideologies. Considering this fact, what we should do or can do? In my understanding the heart of philosophy is really the capability to be reflexive. Reflexivity is one of the most basic requirements for philosophy.

Kant said: "The greatest human quest is to know what one must do in order to become a human being." It seems to me that "becoming a human being" means cultivating our capability of reflexivity – to continuously, deeply and thoroughly conduct the reflections on the reflections. For, only through such reflexivity, we can be aware of the negative side of reflexivity and can be aware of the confusion between the world as it is and the world as constructed. Although it is true that the continuous reflexivity may create another set of reflexivity and the next...endlessly and uselessly, it is also true that without such continuous endless reflexivity we could never be mindful enough to place us on the path to the right human evolution to "become a human being."