Planetary Consciousness

Discussion

Jennifer Gidley:

"In addition to bringing the postformal literature into dialogue with integral perspectives, this paper also introduces a third strand of literature—the planetary consciousness literature. While the psychological literature on postformal reasoning primarily focuses on empirical and analytic articulation of higher stages of reasoning, and the integral literature—particularly Wilberian integral — tends to emphasize the epistemological crisis and how this can be transformed by integral consciousness, the literature on planetary consciousness introduces a much stronger critical, normative element. In my view this must be a vital component of boundary-crossing conversations in the 21st century, given the complexity of our world and the multiple crises that exist. The critical element is lacking in much of the psychological literature on postformal thinking and much of the integral theory, particularly that based on Wilber, with some exceptions (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2005; Hochachka, 2005; Zimmerman, 2005). Although Wilber repeatedly claims that his AQAL framework includes “body, mind, and spirit in self, culture, and nature” the strength of his critiques of the eco-philosophies of the romantics and the contemporary “green movements” potentially undermine the critical efforts of environmental ecologists to re-prioritize the needs of nature as part of a fully integral agenda (Hampson, 2007).The planetary scale and urgency of our current crises need to be foregrounded and brought into intimate relationship with the epistemic shift in consciousness. This critical component is more evident in the evolution of consciousness literature that favors the term planetary — rather than postformal or integral — to denote the emergent consciousness. The use of the term planetary has been increasing within evolution of consciousness discourse. The semiotic pluralism of its contemporary usage provides a counterbalance to the more politico-economic term, globalization. Many researchers who use the term planetary have been inspired by Teilhard de Chardin’s notion of the planetization of mankind (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959/2004). The phrase planetary consciousness is emerging as an alternative to the terms postformal or integral to characterize the new consciousness, particularly in the light of our current planetary crisis. In addition to its popular use by environmental activists it is used in academic contexts by a range of philosophers, scientists, educators and sociologists (Earley,1997; Gangadean, 2006a; László, 2006; Miller, 2006; Montuori, 1999; Morin & Kern, 1999;Swimme & Tucker, 2006). This critical use of planetary has been emphasized in the philosophical writings of Morin who refers to the present times as the Planetary Era, which he claims began around five hundred years ago (Morin, 2001, 2005a, 2005b; Morin & Kern, 1999).Several other contemporary writers have also been influenced by Morin’s concept of planetary (Bocchi & Ceruti, 2002; Ceruti & Pievani, 2005; De Siena, 2005; Montuori, 1999; Poletti, 2005;Saloff-Coste, 2001).Although the term globalization is often used in the politico-economic discourse where the term global may be tacitly infused with notions of homogenization, several researchers have also use the term global to represent more pluralistic notions. Political scientist Manfred Steger refers to the “rise of the global imaginary” which he regards as having both reactionary elements such as those reflected in fundamentalist global religious groups, and radically progressive elements such as those expressed in the justice globalism movement (Steger, 2008). Systems engineer and former president of the Noetic Sciences Institute, Willis Harman (1988) was referring to the emerging “global mind change” over twenty years ago. A recent special issue of the journal Futures is focused on “global mindset change” (Kapoor & Gidley, 2010).Harman conceived a hierarchical model of science drawing on Popper’s three worlds (Popper& Eccles, 1977) which is helpful in demonstrating my layered view of the elements of the planetary studies field. I have adapted Harman’s model (see Table 1) to include the notions of geosphere, biosphere, noosphere and pneumatosphere. This framing also parallels Steiner’s layered view of science (Gidley, 2008b).

In summary, my boundary-crossing contribution to the planetary studies field includes:

- The development of a multi-layered framing of the different streams within the discourse, incorporating critical environmental (biosphere), transcultural (anthropo-socio-sphere), philosophical (noosphere) and spiritual interests (pneumatosphere).This contribution has significant implications for a number of fields. A greater understanding of the importance of using adequate epistemologies and methods for each level of reality may have an impact of the way that global crises are dealt with, the way that international relations are conducted, even in terms of the futures of world governance and collaboration amongsthistorically divided domains and sectors."

(https://www.academia.edu/8838334/Global_Knowledge_Futures_Articulating_the_Emergence_of_a_New_Meta_level_Field)