Written by BARBARA N BROWN
re: the Jerry Coursen on Clare W Graves article, today I received this rather thought-provoking e-mail from Barbara N Brown in Texas, which I thought it important to share.
Thanks for this post. Very interesting.
I noticed the comment that “One of those issues was the fragmentation of the field of Psychology into multiple disciplines like Anthropology and Sociology. Graves thought the discipline of Psychology was better served as a unified entity. I’m of the opinion that this is great intuition on Graves’ part, but, even today, it still bucks the reductionism trend of science.”
I notice from your site, and also from comments on the posts [on the SD lists] that most of us here use multiple models, but interesting enough very few of the models we find useful in the real world are in favor in academic circles. For example, NLP, Wilber, Myers-Briggs are all used widely everywhere but in Psychology departments.
It’s almost as if the early physicists had refused to use Newton. Or as if universities were ignoring integrated circuits because they were only ‘commercial’.
I don’t think it’s possible to do much integral science in the current academic world, much too D-Q in structure. Since the business world finds it useful at E-R, perhaps we should be looking at commercial research. After all, going back to physics, most of the best research on integrated circuits is done in the good industry labs, not in academia. Until we get Orange schools, I don’t think we’ll get much integral research out of them.
It was heartening to hear that business has been using SDi in other areas. Houston – the home of Enron – is such a dismal wasteland there hasn’t been much hope with business here.
Keep up the good work.
I wonder what others think…?