Click here to download the PDF version of this article.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ACADEMY AND ALL GLOBAL CITIZENS CONCERNING AN HISTORIC ADVANCE TO GLOBAL REASON AND CRITICAL THINKING

It has become clear as we enter the 21st Century that our rational enterprise must come to terms with rationality and critical thinking across widely variant worldviews, cultures, paradigms, perspectives and disciplinary orientations. This is a frontier that has become central as we have entered a globalized world where diverse worldviews interact, intersect and often collide in violent clashes in the marketplace of our cultural life. It is my sense that in the ten years of experimental and rigorous development of our Public Issues Forum (PIF) that this venue has made a very significant contribution to understanding and cultivating this global turn in rationality and critical thinking across borders, virtues which are clearly vital for our cultural sustainability in our global age.

For me there is no doubt that our next step as philosophers and educators requires us to expand and deepen our critical capacity to engage authentically in the deeper dialogic dynamics of rationality across and between diverse worlds, paradigms, perspectives and disciplinary languages. And the ethos of our philosophical and academic discourse must mature in this direction if we are to remain vital, not only playing a relevant role in our emerging global cultures, but also in taking leadership in elevating the norms, standards and practices in our rational discourse. In this respect I believe that our PIF has helped to open a vital space within our philosophical and academic culture and is contributing in the highest way to fulfilling the mission and vision of GPPC and our more comprehensive GPHSC.

So it is in this spirit that I now pause, stand back, and reflect with you on the remarkable development and evolution of the PIF over this past decade. I do so not only as ongoing coordinator and chair of this Forum but also as perhaps one of the most continually active members of the GPPC Board of Directors over this decade, former Chair of the Board from 1999 through 2002, and as a philosopher teaching at Haverford College for the past thirty–seven years who has been passionately concerned about the state of our rational discourse and critical thinking as we struggle to come to terms with real diversity, rational common ground and integral intelligence as we enter an unprecedented global age.

I shall present this reflection in two parts for your convenience. In this opening reflection I present a summary overview of central themes in this evolution to focus on the larger picture and to get a synoptic sense of the unfolding logic and continuity from year to year. Over the past decade there have been twelve main forums held at Haverford College funded primarily by the Governors, but also with the ongoing generous help of Haverford College, and more recently in collaboration with our Global Dialogue Institute of which I am the Founder–Director. To help give this summary overview I have prepared a summary list of the early years which I insert into the text below, and I place in the attached Appendix the flyers from each of the main events. In addition, in looking over the now enormous file, I have found it helpful to select a few key Supplements that will make it easier to have a direct sense of the continuous evolution and unfolding of the PIF. In a Sequel I will go into greater detail in documenting and elaborating on the general themes introduced here as I seek to share with you my sense of a fundamental breakthrough into the global dimension of rationality and critical thinking.

At that time too American academic philosophy was fully in the throes of the so–called "Post–Modern" movement and struggling with issues of Subjectivism, Pluralism, Ethnicity, Gender, Logocentrism, Absolutism, Eurocentrism... and struggling to come to terms with diverse cultural worlds and philosophical traditions. But this was just one further symptom of a generic struggle in the American Academy in its challenge of facing the forces of diversity, multiple cultures, inter–disciplinary discourse and recognition of the hermeneutical issues facing rational discourse across all disciplines.

It was at this time also that the early seeds of my Global Dialogue Institute were sprouting as I sought to initiate an institutional space for global dialogue and global rationality across widely variant forms of discourse in liberal arts education as well as for urgent issues in the dramatically shifting and emerging global context of cultural life. As it would turn out a few years later as my Institute blossomed and gained considerable momentum the unfolding PIF would join in common alliance as the Governors discovered a convergence of common interests between certain initiatives of GDI and the PIF as it matured and unfolded in its core focus of deepening Critical Thinking in Education.

In this unfolding integral context we shall also see that the PIF would open space for philosophical explorations that were central to the emerging vision and priorities of the GPPC. The leadership of the GPPC recognized the importance of opening space for the encounter with other philosophical traditions and would soon launch a five year experimental excursion into "world philosophy tutorials" in an attempt to educate ourselves about other traditions and gain some initial literacy at this frontier. Signs were emerging that our philosophical culture needed to face the profound challenges of rational discourse and hermeneutical understanding across borders and boundaries. And in my three year role as Chair of GPPC (1999–2002) as we entered a new millennium and an unprecedented global age I made it a priority in working with colleagues to focus the annual programs on addressing the fundamental themes of philosophy and rationality in a global age.

So in this rich context we shall see that the PIF helped to open vital space for these explorations, at once reflecting concerns at the heart of the rational enterprise for the emerging GPPC Programs, for fundamental postmodern concerns of diversity, ethnicity, gender facing academic discourse in the wider academy, but also creating a vital link with the public at large and reflecting urgent concerns and crises for critical thinking in education and in public life. In this way the PIF was uniquely positioned to open interstitial spaces between these diverse domains, offering new opportunities for creative links and bridges at the interfaces between the deepest concerns of rationality at the heart of academic philosophy, for new frontiers in critical thinking in liberal arts education as well as K–12, and at the same time reflective and responsive to urgent concerns in public life and the wider culture at large. And over the past decade of its maturation and development this potential has come more dramatically into fruition. So with this wider integral context in mind let us now take a deeper look at the specific circumstances and conditions surrounding my initial involvement in this Forum.

Setting the Initial Context – 1994–95: A Significant Convergence

My book marked the culmination of thirty years of research as an analytical philosopher, formal logician, and global ontologist seeking to articulate the profound differences between worlds and to explore the dynamics of rationality across diverse worldviews and forms of discourse. This book (together with its twin companion Between Worlds :The Emergence of Global Reason) presented the results of my long quest through diverse global traditions of philosophy, east, west and other, to get to the heart of rationality and the logic of natural reason. In my journey through the evolution of logic and ontology in diverse traditions a global perspective opened and I discovered certain fundamental patterns in the quest for Integral Logic and the generative source of diverse worldviews, perspectives and variant forms of discourse.

The thesis and finding of Meditative Reason was radical in a number of ways: it suggested that natural reason could not be adequately accounted for within egocentric patterns and dynamics of thinking and world making. My early work through diverse logical traditions in the European context, ranging from Aristotle through Frege and post–Fregean and neo–Aristotelian inquiries found that logical theory was profoundly polarized and that no adequate or coherent integral logic of natural reason had yet emerged. At the same time, my explorations through a vast range of logical traditions in Eastern thought helped me to see that certain patterns of thinking which we might call "egocentric" or "moncentric", and which were pervasive throughout our cultures, would inevitably spawn polarities, dualities, fragmentation and discoherence in reason and in life. In these traditions meditative or integral intelligence was the universal prescription for overcoming the chronic fragmentation inherent in ego minding, and vital for entering into genuine understanding, coherence and integral living.

Meditative Reason presented the results–in–process of my thirty year quest to open global space across diverse traditions and paradigms in the investigation of the fundamental logic of natural language and reason – the long perennial quest to tap and access a deeper universal grammar of thought. The research project seeks to build on the highest and best of east and west in opening global space for rational inquiry and for addressing the most fundamental concerns of philosophy and rationality through the ages.

The narrative of the book alleges that there is, indeed, a fundamental unified and unifying force–field that is generative of our diverse worldviews, ideologies, perspectives, disciplinary narratives and forms of life. It claims to show precisely how and why egocentric patterns of thinking or minding are constitutively incomplete and fragmenting, and thus unable adequately to account for the coherence, potential, and capacities of natural reason. The work suggests that the great traditions of east, west and other (including diverse disciplines such as the sciences) have vital contributions to make in the opening of a more integral and global space of rationality: this narrative privileges neither east nor west, but rather brings out the vital ingredients of both complex traditions while seeking to point the way to the next frontier in the maturation of global reason.

One mark of this turn to global reason is precisely the capacity to hold diverse and multiple perspectives together in an integral rational awareness that celebrates irreducible differences while discerning profound unities and common ground. Global reason, being integral, dialogic and hologistic, is thus multi– and inter–perspectival and thus opens horizons beyond both modernism and postmodernism as it moves beyond the reductive and divisive structures of egocentric reason and hermeneutical praxis.

So one of the main findings of the book, which are also brought out and deepened in the companion volume, Between Worlds, is that how we human use of minds – the technology of our thinking process – is of highest importance in the making of our living reality, in the quality of our experience and in the fabric of our rational life. Here it is stressed that the art of being human calls on all humans to become keenly aware of the patterns and dynamics of our thinking, world making, and hermeneutical activity; to become reflectively and self–critically aware of our egocentric patterns of thinking and thus to recognize that our cultural or disciplinary lives are always shaped by a mental lens or lenses which both prejudice and enable us; to become literate and educated in the tendencies of egocentric minding to privilege its own lens (mental ecology, worldview, ideology, theoretical framework...), and thus to understand the fragmentation, polarization and even violence that can issue from uncritically absolutizing one's own worldview; and. more positively, to become educated in the patterns of dialogic and integral intelligence that cultivates capacities to discourse across and between diverse worldviews, perspectives and forms of life.

Of course this terse summary sketch does not (cannot) do justice to the scope and magnitude of the findings of the twin volumes, but it hints at certain core concerns in rational life concerning discourse across and between worldviews and perspectives that now becomes most relevant in the next stage of development of the PIF as I become involved in leading it in 1995. The main point is that Meditative Reason articulates a fundamental challenge to the philosophy of rationality and critical thinking across worldviews and widely variant forms of life: it makes clear that diverse worlds are worlds apart, lodged in profoundly diverse ecologies of mind, conceptual spaces or meaning, and lays out the profound challenges for crossing worlds, and for rational discourse and critical thinking between worlds. It takes special rational skills to discourse effectively between worlds. And it highlights that critical thinking in this global context essentially calls for the reflective awareness of our technology of mind and monocentric tendencies and fixations.

It makes clear precisely how and why egocentric patterns of thinking produce deep polarities and fragmentation in rational life which lead to breakdown in relations between worlds, and points the way to dialogic and integral dynamics of rational praxis which are vital in cultivating rational discourse and communication between worlds. This opens the frontier of global reason and the maturation of rational intelligence in the encounter of diverse world, perspectives and forms of life. In this way it addresses the deepest concerns of academic philosophy, the culture of liberal arts education and campus life, and more broadly, the early forms of education as well as civic and cultural life in general. This concern, finding and theme would become central in the conception and evolution of the PIF over the ensuing decade.

The ritual of this February 1994 GPPC Faculty Research Seminar helped to open these themes to colleagues of GPPC and it struck resonant chords which were reflected in another featured GPPC event a year later in February, 1995 which focused on "Interpretation Across Boundaries" which I convened and hosted as Chair of Philosophy at Haverford College (See attached flyer with my invitational announcement–"Exploring the Nature of Interpretation in Liberal Arts and Cultural Life") and which brought certain eminent voices to the conversation – Jiten Mohanty (Temple), Jay Garfield (Hampshire College) and David Wong (Brandeis). So these themes of rationality, critical thinking and interpretation across boundaries were emerging in the air and culture of GPPC in 1994–95 when I was first approached by the leadership of the Board of Governors and urged to help them revive and keep alive their wilting Public Issues Forum.

At that time I was already the primary Haverford Representative to the GPPC Board of Directors and in and through our Board Meeting I was encouraged to reach out to the Governors and begin collaboration with them in developing the PIF. At that time, as I mentioned earlier, in the wake of the lawsuit the Governors were demoralized, somewhat scattered and groping for clear focus and direction. But through the early leadership of certain GPPC Directors there was already an emerging focus on "Critical Thinking in Education", especially "K–12" (See some key items attached below that reflect this focus and direction).

For my part, I made a decision to enter the scene and collaborate with the Governors because I felt that the PIF had great potential as a Forum focused on Critical Thinking in Education and that could at once reach into the core of academic philosophy while also reaching beyond the Academy out to bring the cutting edge issues of critical philosophy into significant public dialogues. And in the light of what I just presented as a central research concern – my interest in cultivating the global turn in rationality and critical thinking across worldviews and perspectives – I saw an opportunity for creative collaboration. The Governors learnt of my work and were keen on my working with them to develop the next PIF for 1995.

• "...the GPPC has been very active of late in shaping some cutting edge Public Issues Fora pertaining to some of the more pressing questions regarding Critical Thinking and the Crisis of Education in America. Specifically, we sponsored a Forum last November featuring Cornel West – one of the foremost cultural critics of our generation – on Critical Thinking in the Curriculum. Well over 150 people – teachers, students and the general public – attended the forum"

• DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY IN CRITICAL THINKING: AN OVERVIEW
  We are in the midst of a profound transformation in human reason that has been centuries in the making. This evolution in reason involves a paradigm shift in all aspects of culture to a higher dialogical consciousness. In our cultural evolution the challenges of coping with diversity in its many forms – cultural religious, ideological, ethnic, racial, gender, disciplinary...have placed a great stress on former ways of being rational and making sense of experience. With the increasing global, inter–cultural, inter–religious, inter–disciplinary development of our culture our rational enterprise and educational practices have had to adapt and transform to deal effectively with the many forms and challenges of diversity.
  
  This conference explores these transformations in human reason as they affect all aspects of our cultural life, with special focus on the implications for the creative revision of our educational practices. Three distinguished speakers who have contributed to the advancement of critical reason in education shall present their views to open dialogue and conversation.
  
  Ashok K. Gangadean
  Professor and Chair of Philosophy

Each year the Governors would deliberate on a topic and roster of speakers in consultation with me, and once they agreed on the Forum I would bring this to the Directors and the Chair to be included in the next annual GPPC Program. From the start I played a key leadership role in suggesting possible topics and key speakers, and the Governors would make their decision on the program. I emerged as their "Program Chair" who organized and convened the Forum, and regularly chaired and moderated the annual programs.

I should mention that I was always open to other Directors or faculty becoming involved in leading the Forum, but apparently no other philosopher stepped forward. There was never any presumption that I would continue to act in this role, but year after year as the PIF developed a distinctive power and focus I would be approached with enthusiasm by the Governors to continue, and Haverford College became the ongoing site for the Forum. And as an ongoing member of the Board of Director, an officer and eventually Chair of the Board, there was always ongoing reporting back to the Board and clear channels of communication. Apparently the Directors were pleased with my ongoing role as "Program Chair" and liaison with the Governors. It should be pointed out that the Governors raised the main funds to cover the cost each year, but we were able to make ends meet because of the ongoing support of Haverford College, and then with the further partnership with my Global Dialogue Institute as that alliance developed.

In the next five years there is a focusing in and a convergence on a certain rich and profound area– the interface between the dynamics of Consciousness and the evolution of Science towards Integrative Paradigms. So in the past four years, largely in response to the keen interests of a dramatically growing public audience, a "mini–series" within the PIF evolves which explores in greater depth the role of Mind and Consciousness in the Evolution of Science, Medicine and Integral Studies in the liberal arts. It becomes clear that the generic venue of the PIF – exploring Critical Thinking in Education – is rich and open enough to accommodate a vast range of creative and exciting topics of keen interest to academic discourse, education in the schools and, of course, public and civic life in the culture at large. And in 1999 the more explicit alliance with the "Global Philosophy Forum" of the Global Dialogue Institute commences which dramatically broadens the context and outreach of the PIF.

• December 6, 1995
  GPPC BOARD OF GOVERNORS
  
  Planning the Conference: COMPUTER POWER AND CRITICAL THINKING
  
  One organizing principle and focus for the Conference is to explore the depth, significance and implications of the computer revolution for human thought, rationality, imagination, creativity, learning, ...with special focus on critical thinking and educational practice. What is revolutionary in the "computer revolution"? Does it involve a "paradigm shift" in human thinking or is it a technological device for amplifying and accelerating the thinking process we are already engaged in? Does the embodiment of cyber space transform our rational powers and open new creative possibilities for human thought? Does computer literacy transform how we process ideas: holistic thinking vs linear logics? What are the moral implications of these developments? What does it imply for the creative revision of teaching thinking?
  

• PRESS RELEASE
  The Public Issues Forum of GPPC is especially concerned with bringing into creative dialogue the most advanced developments in philosophical thinking with the more pressing concerns regarding Critical Thinking and the Crisis of Education in America. This crisis in education reflects the more general crisis in American culture which is particularly prominent when diverse cultural, religious and ideological worlds collide or interact. The powerful forces of cultural pluralism and diversity have continued to strain the limits of established habits of thinking ; rationality and educational practice.
  
  Philosophy itself has had to revise and renovate to cope with the changes that affect all aspect of cultural life. It appears that the standards of reason and critical thinking must themselves evolve and advance to assist the public in dealing effectively with the rational crisis in cultural life. How do we reason and communicate across and between diverse worlds? The standards of critical thinking are undergoing deep revisioning in the light of these developments, and this implies a creative rethinking of our educational practices. How can the advancement of critical thinking produce more _. effective education in today's classroom?
  
  This Forum on Computer Power and Critical Thinking seeks to explore the creative potential of computer power to deepen and expand critical thinking and rational capacity. This Conference is designed to promote dialogue and inter–disciplinary exploration of the topic. It is expected that a diverse audience beyond the college campus will be in attendance. This Forum is especially designed to address the interest and needs of educators, teachers and students who are interested in the potential of computer power for augmenting and renovating the educational process. Of course this Forum will explore both sides of the issue, and will thus also focus on the potential negative implications of computer power in the classroom.

What is most noteworthy for this occasion as we focus on the conceptual development of the PIF is that in each case, as the topics vary, we find a common convergence on the profound challenges for rational discourse and critical thinking across diverse worldviews, ideologies, orientations and forms of life: as we moved from the digital revolution in education to issues of Gender and Feminist critique, to the profound issues of religious violence and the breakdown in relations between religious worlds the same fundamental challenges for rationality across borders continue to come forth and raise fundamental challenges for the renovation of the education process, in the schools and for the liberal arts.

It was in this context that a creative partnership and alliance grew with my Global Dialogue Institute which was in a parallel development since 1995. I will not, of course, attempt to get into that narrative here, but some reflection on the unfolding of GDI becomes relevant now. As Co–Founder/Director of GDI it was clear with the publication of Meditative Reason and Between Worlds that institutional space needed to be nurtured to bring forth the global turn in rationality for all aspects of cultural life. It was at this time as I sought to join with other like–minded thinkers to embody the living reality of global reason that the philosophy and technology of Deep Dialogue was born. In my Seven Stages of Deep Dialogue I sought to express certain fundamental and classic rational transformations as consciousness expanded from egocentric closure to a more coherent, inclusive, non–reductive rational capacity to cope with the powerful forces at work in the intersection of diverse worldviews, ideologies, paradigms and forms of life.

The Global Dialogue Institute was born to help co–create a growing global network of leaders who recognized the cultivation of global consciousness and global reason as highest priorities for renovating our human condition beyond the pernicious and toxic fallout from the dominance of egocentric patterns of culture making. As we reached out to key leaders in diverse areas of cultural life– in education, politics, law, diplomacy, inter–religious life, media, international business...the response was remarkable. The work of GDI took off dramatically and it was truly inspiring to discover the degree and intensity of readiness and receptivity of a growing range of leaders to the transforming power of deep dialogue across worldviews, and of the potential of global consciousness and global reason for speaking to the urgent crises facing humanity on the local and planetary scene.

These eminent individuals in their diverse ways all converged in the recognition that there is global wisdom in our great philosophical and spiritual traditions, that these diverse traditions concur in recognizing that consciousness matters, that how we use our minds in self–making and world–making makes all the difference to the quality of our lives, that egocentric patterns which continue to dominate of cultural lives, has been seen through the ages as being a primary source of human malpractice, fragmentation, polarization, discoherence and suffering. These diverse leaders from widely diverse fields, pathways and orientations concur, in the light of this global wisdom, that the awakening of global consciousness, which is hologistic, integral and dialogic is absolutely vital now for cultural sustainability and collective flourishing.

As you will see from the attachment presenting the World Commission, the Vision states: "The Commission seeks to inspire consciousness of the wholeness of the human family and the sacred tapestry of all life. This spirituality is the foundation of a global consciousness that honors the wisdom found in the world's traditions, cultures and disciplines". And the Mission states: "The World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality cultivates a growing community of people from diverse cultural, religious, disciplinary and spiritual orientations to promote global wisdom, vision and values. The Commission is action oriented and acknowledges awakening consciousness and spirituality as transformative powers for the common good".

In this collaborative effort it became clear that global consciousness, global reason opens a deeper dimension of rational intelligence, beyond egocentric reason, and cultivates the capacity to think critically across diverse worldviews, ideologies, paradigms, and to cultivate integral intelligence that can make deeper connections in the field of reality. So awakening global reason involves a dimensional shift in our rational capacity to be inter–perspectival, to think in a whole system or hologistic calculus, to be more discerning in recognizing and honoring true differences, diversity, particularity and individuality, while also deepening capacity to discern common ground and integral connectivity. So in this context "global spirituality" is the capacity to process and experience the boundlessly deep integrity and connectivity of Reality so it arrives at the same horizon of global reason and global consciousness. Global spirituality merges here with global rationality.

In this light it became increasingly clear that the skills and capacities of global reason and global consciousness are in some profound sense the heart of global ethics which arises from the dialogic normativity and interplay natural reason. Here it is seen that the deepest norms of global ethics are revealed in the conduct of rational consciousness in its global form. In this respect, the practice of deep dialogue manifests the virtues of global reason and global ethics in the conduct of our discourse. So when we get to the core of Global Ethics it is found that how we conduct our mind – our technology of minding – is all–important in manifesting the dialogic virtues of respect and mutual recognition between individuals, worldviews, ideologies, communities, and forms of life.

The virtues of global consciousness and critical thinking across worlds thus embodies the global or universal moral norms encoded within awakened global reason. It should be noted that "global consciousness" and "global spirituality" were being used interchangeably, because in the space of global reason, awakened integral, dialogic or global consciousness is found to be expressive of the deepest impulse of globalized spirituality– the awakened awareness of global reason itself. Thus, global spirituality or awakened rational awareness is not to be confused with egocentric forms of religious or hermeneutical life that often issues in pernicious forms of ego–fundamentalism, ego–spiritualism, and other forms of monocentric or reductive minding that invariably comes with egoized rational space: "egomentalism".

In ongoing collaboration with the World Commission GDI launched its own version of a "Public Issues Forum" and in this context a natural alliance and partnership with our local PIF was initiated in 1999. This was also the time that I assumed the Chair of GPPC as we crossed into the 21st Century and the new millennium. In a moment I will reflect on my role as Chair in co–designing our annual programs and encouraging our colleagues of GPPC to critically reflect on the new frontier of global reason before us as we crossed together into an unprecedented globalized world.

In inspecting again the flyers of events included in the attached Appendix you will note that in 1999 certain events initiated by GDI's Global Philosophy Forum begin to show up in the GPPC and PIF Programs. For example, in March, 1999 in our "Fifth Annual PIF" the topic is: "Coping with Violence Done in the Name of Religion" which was the first co–sponsored event with GDI. This topic, of course, in the light of the "9/11" Disaster that would come two years later, proved to be most relevant to the global cultural scene. In fact, Michael Sells of the Religion Department at Haverford was one of the featured speakers who addressed the topic: "The Current Impact of Islamic Holy War, and the Prospects for Resolution". And during the next two years you will note several special events that were primarily sponsored (and funded) through GDI but shared in "co–sponsorship" with the PIF.

For example, in the fall of 1999, during my first year as Chair of GPPC as we celebrated our 20th Anniversary the GPPC poster shows the unifying theme that year as "Global and Millennial Reflections". In this year there was featured a special event sponsored by GDI: "Gandhi's Truth: A Global Dialogue on its Significance for the 21st Century" (See flyer). That year too, the PIF was explicitly co–sponsored with GDI focusing on "What Does it Mean to Be a Person: Re–Designing Self for the 21st Century" (A global dialogue with leading thinkers exploring creative transformations of Self with a focus on issues of Unity and Diversity in the human condition"). In both these cases we witnessed a profound re–consideration and revisioning of fundamental philosophical concepts– Truth and Self...under the global expansion of rational and conceptual space.

Again, during this period, the new partnership between PIF and GDI proved to be mutually beneficial as two further special events in GDI's Global Philosophy Forum (again primarily funded through GDI) were shared in co–sponsorship with PIF to augment and enrich it's annual program beyond the solitary spring event: In November 2000 the PIF and GDI's Global Philosophy Forum="GPF" joined with the International Society for Universal Dialogue to host a Special PIF on Mythos & Logos: How to Regain the Love of Wisdom. (See Flyer) which of course appeared on GPPC's 2000–2001's main poster. From the title of this we get an indication of diverse philosophers recognizing that in academic philosophy something essential has gotten lost in the classic quest for Wisdom. This event which brought diverse notable thinkers together in global dialogue the global turn in the love of wisdom became central.

Again, in October 2001 GDI's GPF joined with GPPC's PIF in hosting another Special Fall Forum: Generations, Lifecycles and the Rhythm of History: Opening a New Vista for Academe & Designing a Center for Generational Studies. This too was primarily funded through GDI with support from Haverford (See Flyer). Here again we were able to convene a distinguished panel, including pioneering authors– Neil Howe and William Strauss who are virtually opening the largely unexplored field of "generational studies". This event took the PIF in a very different direction, yet it characteristically brought out urgent challenges in the ongoing dialogue across generations and the unprecedented emergence of a new breed of youth– a global generation that crosses all kinds of borders. This exploration also focused on the impact of such phenomena for education and for the culture at large.

Very briefly, during the period of 200l through 2004 there were several major events sponsored by GDI's Global Philosophy Forum – three of them direct expressions of the World Commission, but not all cosponsored with the PIF. The first one in the spring of 2001, preceding the "9/11" trauma, featured Jane Goodall, Wangari Maathai (of Kenya, and recent winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize) and other World Commissioners such as Hafsat Abiola (of Nigeria, who was recently given an honorary degree by Haverford at 2003 Commencement) among others. The topic: Global Responsibility: A Reason for Hope – February 200l at Haverford was, by all accounts an historic event for the Philadelphia region.

Naturally, as an event of GPF and World Commission it focused on the vital importance of awakening global consciousness and global reason through deep dialogue for effective global citizenship in the 21st Century. Awakening Global Reason is the Reason for Hope. This two day event drew a overflow crowd to Marshall Auditorium– over seven hundred citizens attending each day. This was felt to be such an inspiring event which created common ground amongst the people that many said it was "not just a conference, but the beginning of a movement". Our mailing list naturally grew dramatically and there were numerous impassioned pleas from a wide range of attendees to follow up with further like–spirited events and call citizens together.

So the momentum and enthusiasm from the appreciative audience sparked two follow–up sequels – one in the Fall of 2003– "Global Responsibility: Our Moment of Choice" (a two day event at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges) which drew other well known Commissioners such as Barbara Marx Hubbard, alumna of Bryn Mawr College and also nominated as a vice presidential candidate in an earlier election. Hubbard is well known for her pioneering work on "Conscious Evolution" and sees the awakening of global consciousness as now vital for our sustainability on the planet. This event again drew a full house on both campuses and a diverse and wide ranging audience took part in the intensive dialogues.

After this successful event a movement did in fact ignite. A range of diverse activist groups all concerned with urgent crises in our cultural life gathered in the wake of this second event to join forces for more political effectiveness as the next election approached. This was now of course after "9/11" and there was intense growing frustration amongst a growing diversity of citizens who felt the need to gather in civic dialogue to share their concerns and muster more political clout. Through such initiatives GDI became a convening force and the methods of deep dialogue emerged as a preferred technology for expanding the civic space and opening space for deeper dialogue in public discourse. So the "Global Town Meeting" was born and regular ongoing meetings took place drawing to the Haverford Campus a diversity of citizens who felt that the civic space was badly fractured and fragmented and no real public dialogue was taking place.

GDI helped to bring out that deep dialogue in a global culture was vital for a healthy democracy. And this gave rise to the third sequel event: "Global Responsibility: Towards Sustainable Democracy" which took place in May of 2004. This event took place at the Academy of Sciences in Philadelphia where youth from over thirty schools in the region gathered to meet, listen to and dialogue with Jane Goodall and other leaders who understood that awakening global consciousness and global dialogue was vital for global citizenship, for taking global responsibility and for the vitality of real democracy in a global polis. Here the very concept of Democracy, Citizenship and Responsibility were under conceptual expansion in the globalization of civic discourse. In the third section of appendices I have compiled selected flyers and related items to help give a more direct sense of these three public events. I include certain fundamental "Queries" concerning global reason and global dialogue for the Global Town Meeting. It should be remembered that this was a period in which Haverford (in collaboration with Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore) was also launching the development its "Center for Peace and Global Citizenship" in the context of our Quaker ethos.

And the second part of this event took place at the Haverford School (Haverford College was not available since it was commencement and Jane Goodall was one of the honorary degree recipients the next day) and again drew a number of public figures, including senatorial candidate Joe Hoeffel who addressed a full house. One objective of this gathering was to move diverse citizens to greater activism as the major election approached. All of which is to give a sense of how the Global Philosophy Forum initiative was reaching out to citizens in addressing vital public issues and bringing the technology of deep dialogue and global rationality into the revisioning and renovation of civic space in the life of the Polis.

I take time to recall this parallel line of development here as we focus on the evolution of the PIF since there was increasingly a confluence of audience interest and participation in both initiatives. Although these three GPF events on Awakening Global Responsibility of the World Commission were not all explicitly linked with the PIF, they could easily have been exemplar PIF events– bringing rigorous philosophical dialogue and global critical thinking to public life. I should mention here, too, that certain key figures featured in these GPF events were also interviewed on my ongoing weekly tv show which brought these issues out even more broadly through the public media. As we will soon see this pattern would unfold also with the next PIF events.

When I became Chair of GPPC in July 1999 there was of course in the air all around us an increasing sense of crossing into a new century and a new millennium. And the year 2000 marked the 20th anniversary of GPPC. At that time too we were already in the midst of an important GPPC experiment in "World Philosophy"– as part of the earlier leadership (before I assumed the Chair) I worked with colleagues of GPPC to envision a significant encounter with other philosophical traditions outside the "mainstream" of "Anglo–European" philosophical thought.

It was increasingly clear that this mainstream was generally ignorant about other important philosophical traditions and streams, and we wisely decided to begin to do our homework and focus some of our resources, time and energy to become more systematically "tutored" in the basics of certain of these rich alternative traditions on the global scene. So we embarked on a five year experiment of "Tutorials in World Philosophy" (which of course is not yet what I am calling "Global Philosophy") to expand our horizons and seriously engage other traditions and approaches. The idea was to help educate ourselves, the faculty members of GPPC, in other traditions. As it turned out we focused in turn on philosophy in Eastern Europe, then in Islamic thought, in Indian Philosophy, in East Asian Thought (2000), in African–African American Philosophy (2001) and finally with Chinese Thought (2002).

It was clear that there were a number of philosophers within GPPC with strong interests in other traditions, including feminist critique, and recognized the importance of an authentic encounter with other approaches to philosophy. As it turns out I became involved in most of these Tutorials and took an active role in at least three– Tutorial in Indian Thought, Tutorial in the Study of Tao, and the one on African/African American in 200l at Haverford which I co–convened in honor of Lou Outlaw, and which brought back Cornel West and a number of prominent African–American philosophers to this celebration. And one clear recurring theme running through these diverse Tutorials was precisely our central concern of opening critical space in rational discourse between philosophical traditions and worlds.

In each case we saw the inevitable focus on the fundamental hermeneutical issues of crossing the boundaries of our worldviews and hermeneutical styles in the encounter of other worlds. And the pattern in these tutorial encounters with other philosophical modalities and forms of life called for the expansion of rational, hermeneutical and critical space as we cross philosophical worlds. And a recurring cardinal principle of responsible critique was the obvious one that any tradition or worldview under critique must be understood in its own philosophical terms and form of life: competent rational critique presumes genuine encounter and understanding of the Other under critique and interpretation. And when this fundamental rational principle is followed, the global space of deep dialogue and rationality between worlds begins to expand and open. So our experiment in "World Philosophy" tutored us in the fundamental importance of the global turn in rationality, hermeneutical praxis and critical thinking– which is to say, in the importance of awakening and cultivating "Global Philosophy".

It was in this context that as Chair of GPPC in 1999 I guided our Board to open the generic theme of the 1999–2000 program as "Global and Millennial Reflections" as we celebrated our 20th Anniversary. The idea here was to help our philosophical culture stand back and open a wider "global perspective" and "global lens" in seeking a wider millennial vista (See the GPPC Poster for 1999–2000). And in this program we see such topics as "Pragmatism for the New Millennium" (in honor of Joe Margolis) and one featured conference seeking to explore the interface between the Analytic and Continental traditions. This is the year that the PIF focused on the topic: "What does it mean to be a Person: Re–Designing Self for the 21st Century" which sparked a lively dialogue on new images of the human being in a globalized word– portraits of a global citizen, of the dialogical human capable of negotiating diverse worlds, of a truly global rational being facing the challenges of an unprecedented global age.

In building on this pivotal "millennial" program the following year in my role as Chair and overseeing the GPPC Program for 2000–2001 I sought to raise the bar on further opening the global vista and global lens with the generic theme: "New Horizons: Entering the 21st Century" (see poster for 2000–01). This was a year in which the PIF had two forums, a special one in the fall initiated by GDI– Mythos and Logos: How to Regain the Love of Wisdom and in the spring– Renovating Education in the 21st Century: the Dialogic Paradigm. With these two events the drama of the global turn in rationality and critical thinking takes another decisive step. This was also the year in which the Tutorial in African/African–American Thought in honor of Lou Outlaw was held, coordinated by Kathleen Wright and me. Two other items in this program also more explicitly continued the self critique of philosophical discourse and hermeneutics: one on Analytic Feminism– Recent Developments in Feminist Thought and Interpretation and Indeterminacy in Musical Scores (which was postponed for the following year). So the GPPC program as a whole was beginning more and more to open up space for deeper critical self reflection across borders.

I'd like to focus especially on the PIF main event that year – Renovating Education in the 21st Century – which featured two outstanding individuals–one was Dr. David Scott, an eminent theoretical physicist and then recently retired Chancellor of University of Massachusetts, Amherst., the other was Dr. Riane Eisler, noted author and educator who had just published an influential book– Tomorrow's Children in which she argues powerfully for a paradigm shift in education and in the culture based on her deep dialogic and integrative "Partnership Way". Dr. Eisler was also a member of the World Commission.

Both presentations were converging on the need for a shift to integrative models of education that in effect turned on awakening global consciousness, global reason, integrative and hologistic intelligence. In particular, Dr. Scott, who had vast practical experience in leading a major university, presented his vision and model for Integral Education as we entered an Integrative Age. Of course I shall not go into details here, I merely wanted to give a hint of this moment since it became quite clear in his critique of the current state of academic discourse that the mentality that dominates our educational praxis and discourse is fragmenting, compartmentalizing, polarizing and goes against the grain of the integrative and interconnected fabric of reality.

Although he did not put it in our terms, he in effect was bringing out that "egomentalism" dominates our discourse and our culture, and his work as an advanced theoretical physicist brought him (as it did David Bohm and many others) to recognized the profound interconnectedness of phenomena in the fabric of existence. It is no accident that scientists like Scott and Bohm who encounter the Unified Field of Nature and Existence through their scientific research would mature into thinkers who see the deep dialogic and integrative mentality as essential in the genuine encounter with objective reality. Scott presented in his power–point a brilliant diagnosis of the dis–integral model of education and then presented his prescription for moving towards a genuine integral model of education, especially in the liberal arts.

I should point out that the auditorium in which these PIF's took place was the newly constructed "Koshland Integral Science Center" reflecting Haverford's high priority in seeking to open space for the cultivation of integral forces amongst the sciences– a trend which is being echoed across the country. It is now more recognized that the extreme compartmentalization of discourse, disciplines, inquiry, knowledge and education urgently needs to be corrected by the recognition and cultivation of integrative forces in discourse– and this inevitably points in the direction of dialogic, global and integrative rationality. Here we see that the struggle of "Inter–disciplinary Studies" to get a foothold in the academy against the dominant regimes of departmentalization and extreme specialization speaks to this point. And these themes were also strongly echoed in Dr. Eisler's critique that sees the polarizing egocentric and monocentric patterns of culture and consciousness as being at the source of violent objectification that urgently needs to be corrected by a "dialogic paradigm" and her vision as the "partnership way".

So the net effect of this PIF was to build on the prior topics and themes in making a systemic link between the mentality of global critical thinking that releases the rational forces that can celebrate diversity without sacrificing unity and common ground, and the patterns of deep dialogue, co–creative and partnership models, holistic and whole systems thinking and integrative intelligence. We begin to see more clearly in this context the systematic link between the global space of critical reason, deep dialogic mentality, hologistic and integrative intelligence– the capacity to make deeper links in rational thought between diverse forms, phenomena, disciplines and paradigms.

The deeper logic of connectivity across borders in the encounter of the unified field of reality begins to come into relief in the renovation of educational discourse and praxis. In this way it appears the logistical and hermeneutical resources of global reason may well provide rational foundation for the analytical and discriminative power to discern differences, particularity, individuality, historicity, specificity and diversity while at the same time sustaining the integrative and hologistic powers to hold this diversity in deep connectivity and systemic coherence. Such a global rational space would have stunning implications for the renovation of our educational and cultural praxis.

It was in this context that the generic title for the following year, 2001–2002 was Exploring the Limits of Language (see poster). Here again we see a good balance in the program between the more conventional topics and those that pressed new frontiers of hermeneutical life beyond the old fixed borders. For example, we have in the spring of 2002 the Tutorial in the Study of Tao (the last tutorial), one focusing on The Limits of Language is Medieval Christian and Islamic Mystical Philosophy, the one on Interpretation and the Indeterminacy of Musical Scores, and what would turn out to be the first of a "mini–series" in the last four PIF's on A Dialogue on Science and Spirituality: Exploring the Emerging Integrative Paradigms (see flyer). I will shortly discuss the significance of this PIF and give a sense of the powerful impact this event had with the overflow audience. We will see that something clicked with the public and with the Governors as well– suddenly, after two or three consecutive years of unimpressive attendance, people showed up from all walks of life and a wide variety of professions. This topic struck a nerve in the pubic imagination, and by popular demand we (the Governors and I) co–designed a sequel for the following year. I'll pick up on this in a moment.

I pause here to bring up the "9/ll" moment because it did send shock waves through all of us, and for some of us it was a wake–up call, a global moment, to really begin to feel one effect of the clash of worldviews, cultures, religions, ideologies, civilizations, and the terrorism of one extreme form of egomentalism. And it brought into even sharper focus the central importance and urgency of bringing forth global critical reason, and precisely the issues, themes and topics that were the central focus of the PIF and GDI's GPF and, of course, the work and mission of the World Commission on Global Consciousness. And from the global perspective of the Commission in its effort to bring forth the findings of global wisdom and global ethics this terrible act of terrorism was just one expression of a pervasive mentality that dominates our cultures, our institutions and our hermeneutical practices.

For the consensus and collective wisdom of our great philosophical traditions recognizes that egocentric or monocentric minding is the common deep structure and genetic origin of diverse forms of existential, rational and hermeneutical pathologies. It highlights the urgent need to become reflectively aware and mindful of how we are using our minds, of the technology of our thinking and world making, of the logistic of our hermeneutical praxis. This is perhaps the primary point of the global turn in critical thinking– not the more myopic "critical thinking" within a given worldview or form of minding, but the deeper dimension of reflective rational awareness of the technology of our minding which recognizes that we have a mental lens that shapes all that appears to us in our worldview. In this global turn in critical reason it is of the utmost importance to become self consciously aware, critically aware, that our form of minding is directly shaping our experience and all that appears, and to take responsibility for our minding praxis and for the existential consequences that directly issues from such minding. This is the cutting edge of the global critical turn: the ethos of global rationality calls forth mindful attention to our technology of mind.

Perhaps this is the most important finding of global critical reason – global wisdom and ethics– that minding matters, and that monocentric patterns of minding that uncritically privileges its own lens, worldview, ideology, perspective, conceptuality, form of life....invariably issues in fragmentation, polarization, deep dualism, dis–coherence, existential pathologies and is the root cause of diverse form of hermeneutical violence. And global critical awareness calls us to become keenly aware at this deeper level of how we are conducting our mind and of the consequences of our minding for our self making and world making and existential condition. And these are precisely the core themes that have been the central focus, for example, of the unfolding PIF events.

In this context it appears that the breakdown in discourse and relations between worldviews, perspectives, ideologies, cultures....is just one manifestation and symptom of the underlying mentality of "egomentalism" and uncritical ego–reason that takes its localized worldview or ideology to be absolute or privileged. The extreme forms of religious fundamentalism, for example, that pervades our cultures and lead to terrorism and violence of all sorts is just one manifestation of the deeper common source of egomentalism or monocentric minding that is the failure of genuine critical reason. And here, the narrative of Huntington in his "clash of civilizations" scenario for the 21st Century would certainly ring true if all we had was egocentric reason. But this is certainly not what the collective global wisdom of the ages suggests. On the contrary, the tradition of global critical reason has for millennia explicitly diagnosed the condition of egocentric "reason" or minding– egomentalism –and the pernicious effects its uncritical self privileging.

Thus, in the light of global critical reason it appears that our cultures, institutions and hermeneutical practices are still pervaded and dominated by such pre–rational and pre–critical atavistic patterns of minding. And it is of the highest priority to radically query ourselves concerning our minding attitudes: how open are we, really, to a genuine encounter with other worldviews, perspectives, paradigms, hermeneutical orientations, ideologies, forms of life...? How open are we in our culture to engaging in genuine deep dialogue and critical minding? How ready, willing and able are we in our academic disciplines to radically questioning our lens, our worldview, perspective or disciplinary grammar?

In my own experience within philosophy, for example, and within the academy, I have certainly noticed pervasive patterns of closure to the genuine respectful encounter with alternative approaches. Indeed, the specific areas in which I am formally trained, analytical logic and the "analytic" tradition has been notorious, at least in the 20th century, in its ignorance and disdain for other approaches to philosophy, logic, language, epistemology and hermeneutical orientations. I have certainly noticed, for example, dismissive patterns of contempt and disdain for "eastern" modes of thoughts as not being "genuinely philosophical". It is appropriate here to wonder whether such pre–critical closure exists in our own disciplines, indeed, in our own hermeneutical praxis.

The Other is cut off in a certain hermeneutical violence and ir–rational forces take over which often issue in the form of ad hominem discrediting of the discourse, narrative, voice, or person of this Other. The fundamental objective issues, queries or challenges posed by this Other are never truly engaged, and rational discourse does not even get started. Instead, the Other is typically mis–appropriated, mis–represented, discredited, marginalized, denied, rejected, eclipsed, threatened, silenced, censored, repressed or, if possible, even extinguished. This, of course, has been recurring universally through the centuries. And initiatives, such as the work of the World Commission on Global Consciousness, recognize clearly in the light of global reason that a mass awakening of global critical consciousness is the only effective remedy for this pervasive vice of egomentalism that still dominates our cultures and institutions. This is why the opening and cultivation of global critical space in our educational institutions, such as the venue of our PIF, is so vital for our sustainability in the 21st Century.

This was the mood in which we planned our GPPC Program for 2002–03. In direct response to this urgency the program was given the generic title: Needs & Values, and the conference topics reflected this sense of urgency: "Rationality and Cultural Conflict". "Human Needs, Global Justice" (which I was asked to Chair), "Science, Values and Society" (a two–day special celebration) (in honor of Hugh Lacey, who has been an exemplary "public issues philosopher"). And this was the year in which the PIF pursued the quest for global critical thinking and integrative paradigms in the first sequel to "A Dialogue on Science and Spirituality II: Paradigms of Integrative Thinking". I will pick up on this item in a moment.

This trend continued into the GPPC Program of 2003–04 which was orchestrated by the new Chair, and which had the generic theme: Integrity and Practice, and featured publicly sensitive conferences such as Scientific Integrity, The Marketplace as Moral Space, and an even more explicitly global event– Globalization, Democracy and Ethnicity in which I made a presentation on Deep Dialogue & Democracy, and which was convened by Frank Hoffman (West Chester– another consistent exemplar of a philosopher cultivating and opening global space). And, of course, these events were augmented and complemented by the 10th Annual PIF on Critical Thinking in Education which continued the sequel in Exploring the Emerging Integrative Paradigms and Integral Medicine. So we begin to see the larger context for the evolving PIF events.

I took a certain pleasure in seeing GPPC moving more explicitly in this direction, in focusing energy more directly on urgent global issues that call for philosophical insight, critical reflection and guidance. I felt that the many years of effort of the PIF and GPF to focus on such issues and open global critical space was now being reflected in the mainstream core GPPC program as a whole. It was in this context that the Chair of GPPC was passed on to the newly elected Chair, as I continued to collaborate with the Board of Governors (still, of course, always on a year to year basis) as its "Program Chair". And I should mention that in my three years as Chair of GPPC I made annual reports to the Provosts and Deans of the Greater Philadelphia Humanities Studies Council (GPHSC) who entered the scene in the wake of the infamous lawsuit some years earlier, and who now oversaw the activities and annual budgeting of GPPC.

In my annual summary reports to GPHSC I would of course bring out the virtues of the annual GPPC programs as I made urgent appeals for continued funding which was nevertheless shrinking and increasingly competitive. Each year we had to make our case for continued priority funding as we now competed with other groups, and the Provosts and Deans were apparently pleased with the direction we were taking in addressing the concerns and needs of the wider academy and culture. And of course other Departments of Philosophy around the country were also responding to the "wake up" call. For example, philosophers at Rutgers University (Camden Campus) were seeking to re–design their departmental program now more oriented to "public issues". They learnt of my work and leadership with the World Commission and invited me to make a presentation on "Global Reason, Deep Dialogue Between Worlds and Global Citizenship" in their public philosophy forum and to meet their Deans and enlist my help in this cause (see attached flyer in appendix 3).

I will turn in a moment to remember how and why this mini–series developed. But in looking at all four of these topics, focused on creating deep dialogues on Critical Thinking in Education, we see the main theme of Global Critical Thinking in Integral Liberal Arts Education, Integral Science and Integral Medicine. So all four topics were especially concerned with exploring the Integrative Power of Global Critical Reason in fundamental areas of public concern. Please remember that this line of development was sparked by the ignition that took place in the 7th Annual PIF – Renovating Education in the 21st Century – which we discussed earlier, and which drew a full house. The intensive dialogue that ensued with the public made it unmistakably clear that the audience was ready and hungry for more further exploration of global integrative thinking in education, culture and our personal lives.

It was becoming clearer, after seven years of PIF experimentation, that the public was developing a mind of its own and expressing an emerging collective intention and need for making deeper connections, for overcoming chronic fragmentation in all aspects of cultural life, and for integrative explorations that opened space for their voices to be expressed and heard. It was clearer that there was an real appreciation in the growing core audience for the venue and format of deep dialogue, rather than the older style "academic" conferences that presented academic papers and responses that left no time or space for significant audience participation and interactive dialogue, nor spoke to the burning issues that were foremost in their minds. And I should mention, too, that with the productive alliance between the PIF and GDI's GPF the core public audience was growing significantly.

So coming off the momentum of the 7th Annual PIF, with a clearer sense of possible forum topics that responded directly to the expressed passionate interests of the public, the Governors took the initiative in wishing to go deeper into the interface between science and integral rational consciousness. So the 8th Annual PIF was designed for the spring of 2002 with this in mind. Of course at that time there was no sense that this topic would resonate so powerfully with the public, nor that the momentum would build as it did generating the "mini–series" with three sequel, each focusing in more deeply on areas that were barely scratched in the prior ones. It was clear that we discovered a rich fundamental area of Critical Thinking in Education which opened vast possibilities for further fruitful in–depth explorations. It was in this spontaneous and experimental way that the last four PIF's emerged as an integral unfolding series.

And certainly from the experience of the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality it was clear that there was a growing world–wide ground swell and readiness amongst the people for making deeper connections in their lives through integral intelligence and holistic interconnectivity. So we begin to see a profound convergence between global consciousness (opening the expanded global rational lens) across the between worldviews, deep–dialogic minding (rational transformations between diverse worldviews and perspectives), and integral intelligence (the capacity to discern common ground and make deeper connections within experience and across diverse disciplines, etc).

Opening the space of global reason and critical thinking thus, as we have seen, essentially moves in the direction of deep–dialogic dynamics and the dimensional advance to real integrative and hologistic intelligence that experiences inter–connectivity. And this is now seen to be the heart of rational spirituality– that awakened global rationality converges on awakened global spirituality – in encountering and experiencing the boundless hologistic interconnectivity of existence and experience. And certainly in the dramatically expanding circles in which I move and work I have come into productive collaboration with an amazing expanding community of scholars, scientists, medical practitioners, educators, philosophers who are now centered in this dimension of hologistic global rationality.

So over the past three decades there has been a clear and decisive emergence of a new breed of integral thinker within the academy and of course in the public at large. It was this emergent fertile resource that I sought with the Governors to tap and bring to our PIF and GPF. So when we used the term "spirituality" in this "Dialogue of Science and Spirituality" it is in this special context of recognizing a profound convergence of the scientific quest for the unified field of interconnectivity and the quest of awakened global rational intelligence for deeper systemic connections and the interconnectivity of life and experience. Awakened rationality and global spirituality and the quest of integral science seemed to converge at a common frontier and horizon.

It was in this context that we planned and designed the 8th PIF, which turned out to be first in a series of Deep Dialogues on Integral Science. The Governors, under my guidance, agreed that we should take an inter–disciplinary approach, and that we should seek to include more mainstream voices as well. In fact it turned out that the mainstream voices, scientists and scholars, we invited would invariably shy away, for reasons which should be obvious, from appearing on the podium with the new breed of "alternative scientists and integral thinkers" we were also inviting. But we felt that the mainstream voices would be brought into the dialogue either through voices from the diversely constituted audience or from our own self–conscious efforts to bring in and honor the mainstream perspectives. In any case the featured presenters we selected would already bring a diversity of backgrounds, fields of training, and orientations.

So in looking at the flyer for the Spring 2002 we see that there were three main featured speakers– Dr. John Hagelin, (noted theoretical physicist and Director of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy), speaking on "The Unified Field of Physics and Consciousness", Foster Gamble (Independent scientific researcher), speaking on "Sacred Geometries and Consciousness", Dr. Andrew Newberg M.D. (noted for his work in brain imaging of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Hospital, Department of Radiology & Psychiatry), speaking on "Spirituality, the Brain and God" and Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris (noted Evolution Biologist) speaking on "Nature as a Living Integrative System". So we have four diverse voices from physics, mathematics, biology and radiology/medicine/brain studies coming into dialogue with each other, and with the audience.

In preparing the presenters as well as the audience for the intensive exploratory dialogue in the space of global critical thinking I composed the following guiding "queries" which in fact helped to open space for global dialogue:

• THE GREATER PHILADELPHIA PHILOSOPHY CONSORTIUM
  PRESS RELEASE
  SPRING 2002
  THE 8TH ANNUAL PUBLIC ISSUES FORUM ON CRITICAL THINKING IN EDUCATION
  
  A DIALOGUE ON SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY: EXPLORING THE EMERGING INTEGRATIVE PARADIGMS
  
  In the past two decades there have been exciting developments at the frontiers of Science and Spirituality. Frontier scientists have been in quest of the fundamental laws and patterns of the universe, and this quest has led them to explorations in the Unified Field of Nature. At the same time trends in global spirituality have sought to uncover the ultimate patterns of consciousness and common ground across religious and spiritual worlds. This fundamental quest for Unifying Forces, Common Ground and the Unified Field that links all realities together has opened profound issues in the convergence of Science and Spirituality as we enter the 21st Century:
  
  Is there a fundamental common ground between science and spirituality?
  
  Are there fundamental patterns of the universe that connect nature and consciousness?
  
  Is the Unified Field of Physics and nature the very same Unified Field of Reason and Consciousness?
  
  Are the diverse disciplines of the Liberal Arts linked in any coherent way?
  
  Is there a fundamental connection between mathematics and consciousness? Is there a common deep structure between geometry and the structure of awareness?
  
  What does it mean to say that Nature is a Living Integrative and Learning System?
  
  Can Evolutionary Biology make significant links between the patterns Nature, human consciousness, and structures of Life?
  
  What is the link between mind, body and religious experience? Can new knowledge of the functioning of the brain illuminate spiritual life and the experience of God?
  
  These are some the leading questions that will be explored in this exciting dialogue that brings together certain leading figures in the frontiers of Science and Spirituality (See attached flyer for details)
  
  Ashok Gangadean, Professor of Philosophy
  Chair, GPPC
  Co–Founder–Director of GDI

And this theme became central in the dialogue: each speaker saw, stated or affirmed that it takes hologistic intelligence to access and process the deep connectivity of the objective universe, of nature and existence. And there was an emergent consensus that the older restrictive patterns of monocentric reason with its constitutive fragmenting dynamics, and inertia in critically self–revizing its monocentric lens, could not access the integral phenomena or adequately be the organon for integral science and integral rationality. Hagelin, for example, conjectured that the unified field of physics and the unified field of consciousness converged and called for deeper dynamics of integral minding. In other words, a clear sense emerged that the dynamics of minding had to cohere with the integral and hologistic dynamics of the phenomena, with the unified field of reality. It takes a unifying or hologistic logistic of mind to access and adequately process the interconnectivity of existence.

It became apparent that scientific minding and method itself was under revision and being opened and expanded into the space of global critical thinking beyond older ossified boundaries of egomentalism or monocentric attitudes in conceptual theorizing or hermeneutical praxis. It became more apparent that these four diverse researchers in diverse ways were coming to the same generic finding that some kind of deep dialogue rational intelligence and episteme was essential to truly encounter the inter–connectivity of natural (or cultural) phenomena under investigation. The lens of the researcher needed expansion and self revision to really enter the unified field of phenomena. And, of course, this is a revision for scientific minding with astounding consequences. Is the next evolutionary development in scientific method/minding the shift beyond older monocentric rational dynamics into the dynamics of global critical reason? The deep ontology, grammar, episteme, hermeneutic and organon of the sciences (indeed, of all educational and cultural praxis) was now under radical critique.

And if a "paradigm shift" within science (as documented by Thomas Kuhn and other) is traumatic enough for existing dominant regimes, imagine how much more disturbing or threatening a dimensional shift in the very organon or logistic (technology of minding), in the hermeneutic, deep ontology and episteme of scientific minding would be. So much is at stake here, it is no wonder that there is such a breakdown in genuine dialogue or rational discourse between the existing regime and the now emergent alternative scientific hermenutic that taps the unified field of existence more deeply and is crossing into the inter–perspectival space of global critical reason. The older regimes that may be lodged within and still laboring under the objectifying and reductive practices of monocentric rationality are now under serious critique and have no choice but to address the radical critique of the hermeneutic of global rational space, and to be accountable to critical standards. Merely to ignore, dismiss, disparage, deny, dis–represent the emergent alternative episteme or pretend it does not exist is not is certainly not a rational response and not in the true scientific spirit. Yet this is what we have largely seen thus far.

I should mention that opening this focus on the logic, ontology and hermeneutic of Integral Medicine was seen to be a perfect sub–theme for the area of critical thinking in science, culture and education because obviously medical practice, grounded in current alopathetic establishment science, reflects this lens and thus exhibits all the virtues, vices and limitations of current scientific paradigms. But the area of Alternative Medicine opens the global vista of medical practices that have been tested over millennia in diverse cultures across the globe.

So it is a perfect topic to face head on our central topic of critical thinking across widely variant worldviews or ontologies of the human anatomy, of healing sciences and arts across the planet. And this inquiry was all the more timely since it is now clear that in recent decades there has been a profound and alarming shift in the preferences people are making to seek out alternative healing modalities. Statistics show that perhaps more than 60% of the public in America are voting with the feet and seeking alternative healing practices. And there is no doubt that there is now afoot a revolution in medicine which is being reflected in transformed curricula in the most prestigious medical schools. And here again it is clear that there is a vital public issue being advanced by a growing sentiment amongst the people.

As it turned out our Global Dialogue Institute had been working with Dr. Howard Posner (one of the pioneers in Integral Healing) over the past six years in offering a Community Seminar at Haverford for the tri–college community. This seminar– "Wisdom and the Healing Arts" was offered for credit earlier at Swarthmore College. And each semester I would make a three hour presentation on my work on the deep ontology and rational foundation of Integral Medicine and healing practices across diverse worldviews. This was an ideal topic for the resources and technology of global critical thinking and the integral resources of deep dialogue dynamics.

In any case, the momentum was deepened in the 9th PIF, we had another over flow attendance and continued engagement and continued acclaim from the audience. And since Dr. Laszlo had postponed his appearance at the Forum until the spring of 2004 (along with Dr. Ralph Abraham (Mathematics, University of California, Santa Cruz) the Governors naturally decided to follow up with a second sequel in its l0th PIF, this time more specifically focusing on Integral Medicine (See attached Flyer). So this 2004 PIF brought Dr. Laszlo who spoke on "The Connectivity Hypothesis–Foundations of Integral Science of Quantum, Cosmos, Life and Consciousness". Dr. Abraham spoke on "Chaos, Fractals and the New Mathematical Mysticism" and a featured presenter was Haverford's own Dr. Jon Kabat–Zinn (Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School). His topic was "Mindfulness in Mainstream Medicine, Health Care and Society: A Model for the Seamless Integration of Science and Contemplative Practice". We reached a new high in terms of the power of each presentation and the engagement of the dialogue with the audience.

All three presentations opened diverse perspectives and approaches and mutually complemented each other, modeling a certain integral interplay. And since Dr. Kabat–Zinn was well known in medical circles around the country and especially here in Philadelphia where his teaching is featured at the Jefferson Medical College's Integrative Medical Institute, we had an unusually large turnout of medical people and health care workers. And, of course, the fundamental philosophical and hermeneutical issues at the core of Medical Science and Integral Healing emerged as the focal point for this deep dialogue since it plays out the living issues of Integral Science in the most immediate existential and pragmatic way since we all struggle with issues of health and healing, and this is one context in which the more theoretical issues of Integral Science plays out practically in our daily lives. So this 10th PIF built beautifully on the two prior PIF's and it was clear that a "mini series" was unfolding.

In moving to closure I should mention that by now the cumulative effect of these PIF's compounded over a decade had built a substantial core public following. Almost each year there would be coverage in the local news. And in recent years through my weekly television show, now called "Global Lens" in its fifth year, I was able to interview certain eminent voices in the PIFs and bring them out to the Greater Philadelphia Region. So the work of the Governors was becoming recognized in ever wider circles. One such moment was a high profile event in Philadelphia sponsored by the American Jewish Committee– bringing into direct personal face to face dialogue Dr. Judea Pearl (father of journalist murdered in Pakistan) and eminent Islamic scholar and public figure, Dr. Akbar Ahmed of Pakistan, and currently professor at Georgetown University.

These two courageous individuals were in the headlines here (and eventually around the world) since they were willing to meet publicly in deep dialogue to model the way of global dialogue for their communities and for the global scene. I mention this because the President of the Governors, Ann Bora, personally hosted for the GPPC Governors a major luncheon at the Franklin Museum that brought a number of notable individuals to the table to celebrate the moment and engage in inter–religious and inter–cultural dialogue. Since Ann could not be there Alex Marshall stood in for her, and for the Governors, and I made some opening remarks on the efforts of the Governors within the context of GPPC. I also hosted a one–hour television special on the high profile dialogue of these two remarkable individuals at the University of Pennsylvania (Spring 2004). An example of further outreach of the Governors embodying the values of global deep dialogue for our challenging times.

Finally, in quickly inspecting the last PIF of March 2005 (see attached flyer), again largely in response to the keen interests of the audience, the Governors asked me to keep the momentum going by bringing a different configuration of eminent presenters to continue the probe into the foundations of Integral Science, Medicine and Critical Thinking in Education. Because of my connections and network I was able to bring three outstanding leaders to this PIF. Dr. Arthur Zajonc (well known Professor of Physics, Amherst College), who spoke on "Contemplative Knowing: Reconciling Eros and Insight"; Dr. Marilyn Schlitz (Vice President for Research & Education at the Institute for Noetic Sciences and Senior Scientist at the Research Institute– California Pacific Medical Center) speaking on "Consciousness and Healing: Integral Approaches to Mind–Body Healing" and Dr. Louis Kauffman (Professor of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Chicago) speaking on "Natural Science and Mathematics: In Simplicity".

Again, this event drew a full house and it is remarkable that most of the audience remained through the more than four hours and for the following reception. People were deeply sparked and engaged in intense conversation and the energy level of the event was remarkable. It should be noted in closing that this past year the generic organizing topic for the GPPC Program was "Models of Mind, Models in Science". So there was an auspicious complementarity between the more mainstream academic events and topics and the special venue open and held by the PIF. And when seen in its full context it become more evident that the PIF in its decade of evolution and development is holding a very unique and vital space for Other Voices in the common quest for deeper critical thinking across worldviews, perspectives and orientations.

 Top of page...