Integral Studies and Practical Consequences
After reading the valuable contributions posted on the Meta Listserver, and listening to the many enlightening and often inspiring presentations at the New York concurrent State of the World 2000 and Future Visions meetings, I suggest the following as important issues that should be taken up, and could form the basis of interlinked research and action programs.
A. Foundational Issues: Image, Reality, and Integral Visions.
2. Reductionism, emergent order, and implications.
3. Integral Visions: analytic and experiential
B. Developmental Issues: Society and Ethics
5. Ethics and values in public policy and technological practice.
6. Well-being (Quality of Life) Indices for Society, and their use.
C. Religious and Ethical Issues: Discernment, Kenosis, and Hope
8. Kenosis and forgiveness in world religions and in practice
9. Ways of handling divergence of opinion in religion and ethics.
10. Issues of hope and reality.
D. Making a Difference
12. Implementation projects: action research and demonstration.
I discuss each of these themes below. Then in Section E I present an ambitious overall project proposal to take this further, in the spirit of what was requested by the organisers of the Future Visions conference.
A: Foundational Issues: Image, Reality, and Integral Visions
The issues raised in this section are foundational issues, but nevertheless are important for practical life in general and in particular for global development, for they shape the way we see ourselves and our destiny. In particular, they underlie the moral positions we take, which then shape our policy decisions.
1: Ontology and Epistemology: Relations of Image and Reality.
We can extend these limits by developing greater sensitivity and by constructing detecting and measuring instruments that probe things in ever greater detail, but nevertheless there are always, at each epoch, limits to what we can sense or detect and measure, and additionally there are fundamental limits to what we will ever be able to measure regardless of what instruments we construct in the future. This is strongly related to the nature of selection effects underlying our observations, which determine what we detect, and hence what we pay attention to.
Additionally, we necessarily use simplified models to represent the complexity of what is: we focus attention on some subset of what there is, because we simply cannot cope conceptually or in informational terms with the full complexity of reality. We can only measure and record representations of a small part of the total complex reality, for that is all that is practicable (remember that there are 3×10^23 molecules per gram of hydrogen, 10^13 cells in a human body, 10^11 neurons in the brain, and 10^11 stars in a galaxy).
In the light of these problems, there is a tendency to solve the issue of existence either by (i) confusing ontology and epistemology, indeed in many cases essentially identifying them, in particular by confusing our highly simplified models with reality, and/or by (ii) denying the existence, or at least importance, to major aspects of reality and the related data. The underlying problem here arises because each of us becomes an expert in some part or aspect of the whole that is particularly congenial to us (we are sociologists, economists, evolutionary psychologists, astronomers, quantum physicists, literary critics, artists, etc). We then face the temptation of stating that this aspect is all that there is, or at least is all that is important, and then suppressing or ignoring contrary data. But each of these aspects in fact gives a window on only some aspect of reality, which when taken together provide a much fuller vision of what is than any single avenue of investigation (one can of course have intellectual fun by denying this – but that is not a fruitful approach to a theory of nature that is relevant to actually living one’s life). Thus when considered as a whole, they more fully illuminate the nature of reality, each providing light from its own viewpoint, but necessarily even this totality of views and data must leave some of aspects of reality unrevealed.
It would be useful to research these issues further, for they are the foundations of our world views and hence of our local and global actions. In particular there could be programs to investigate further,
b: To what degree can we determine each of these aspects of reality from the limited information and images we can have of it? This is based on investigating the relation between being (ontology) and appearance, cf. for example, Plato and the cave; artistic studies on light, shadow, and perspective; Arthur Eddington’s discussion of the physical structure and appearance of a table; relativity theory and the observer dependence of measurements; quantum theory and its relation to measurements; and measurement issues in astronomy and cosmology, in particular the issues of dark matter and cosmological horizons, and the wavelength-dependence of images.
c: How does this analysis relate to the issue of religious and ethical plurality, and the multiple spiritual views of the nature of things? Can it support the view that the difference between various religions can be considered as being caused by different views of the same underlying reality?, cf. Paden , Hick , Race , Butler  for example. One particular issue here that needs further exploration is the tension in this regard between the theistic and non-theistic world-views.
2: Reductionism, emergent order, and implications
To some this then undermines the ontological status of the higher levels of structure and causation (‘you are nothing but a set of chemical elements’); indeed this is one of the strong motivations for denying the meaningfulness of these levels (‘your emotions are just electrons flowing in your neurons’). Contrasting with this is much writing on emergent order at higher levels , and discussion of how these levels can be seen as possessing causal efficacy and allow a self-contained phenomenological description independent of what occurs at lower levels. In particular there is useful discussion of its physical basis in terms of (i) top down causation acting on the lower level components , and (ii) how quantum effects undermine a straight-forward reductionist view . The overall consequence is that reductionist thinking must be replaced by systems thinking if one is to understand the functioning of the system itself . This is a central issue in the way we view the universe, and how we regard the nature of humanity (‘man is nothing but a machine’; ‘the brain is nothing but a computer”). Thus it is worth having a project to look at this, both in terms of physics and of philosophy (and this relates in important ways to the previous project):
e: What is a convincing philosophical position regarding reductionism and emergent order? Various people identify ‘supervenience’ as the key idea allowing meaningful independent status and phenomenology to the higher levels . Does this do the job? What about ‘top-down causation’?
f: Consistency issues. What kind of limits are imposed on the higher level structures by those at lower levels? They seem largely independent but are not totally so, e.g. energy conservation at higher levels is a consequence of energy conservation at lower levels. Can one characterise more clearly the degree of dependence/independence of the different levels of structure, and the consistency relations between them?
3. Integral Visions: analytic and experiential
Thus it is a holistic understanding of nature and the universe, embracing the past, present, and future, but integrated with positive values, and so can be called an integrated view or an integral vision (see the Future Visions statement by Wayne Teasdale ). I shall refer to it by that name in what follows. The need then is,
This is an issue of visioning the past, present, and possible future states each as an integral whole, on the one hand taking into account present best-state understandings of science, in particular cosmology, relativity theory, quantum theory, particle physics, molecular biology, developmental biology, evolutionary theory, and consciousness studies, and on the other of human and social issues and technology, including in particular the way ethical issues necessarily play a central role in this broader vision. The question is how to help professionals on the one hand, and the broader public on the other, relate to and experience this kind of holistic vision, both in analytic and in experiential terms. A useful project can pursue this issue.
h: Educational standards, methods, and materials: underlying this is the issue of what people need to know in order to achieve a good understanding of this kind of holistic view and integral vision. This requires knowing substantial factual information about the world and the universe, as well as generic principles (see for example Hirsch  on why, in order to obtain proper understanding, knowledge of many factual issues is needed as well development of generic and specific skills and understanding of broad general principles). Interesting work has been done on what everyone should know in science , and this has been formalised in a set of National Science Education Standards . A useful project would be to extend those standards to those required in order to appreciate an integral view such as is proposed here.
The further step then would be developing educational materials that would make this all accessible to ordinary people, as well as to experts highly trained in specific areas, testing those materials against the chosen Integral Vision Standards.
B: Developmental Issues: Society and Ethics
4. Inquiry re progress in global ethics and practice in the last millenia. An important issue arising in evolutionary history is whether there has been ‘progress’ in some sense, and this has been hotly debated. In terms of human history a related very important issue is whether there has been progress in ethical terms in the course of the last few thousand years.
This may be worth a project, particularly because it is strongly related to hope and the way we perceive the course of human history:
5. Ethics and values in public policy and technological practice
Given this need, it will be useful to have programmes exploring the following:
Given the agreement on the degree to which technology will dominate development practice this century, an important issue is how well that technology is adapted to the needs of it users:
c: The humanity of technology: Investigate the degree to which technology is designed to adapt to people and environment as against the degree to which they are expected to adapt to technology . Particularly important here is the user interface of electronic equipment, often extremely badly designed, and specifically the human-computer interface. Bad design of this interface, conceived in the broadest terms, is one of the main reasons that computers are often so ineffective in practice . This issue will take on particular importance as computers are more widely used in developmental projects in the third world context. Well-tested proposals for improving this interface in these contexts will be particularly important.
This comes under the rubric of ‘ethics’ because in the end, the kind of design that is machine-based rather than user-based is a result of a set of values that do not place primacy on the user community’s needs.
6: Well-being (Quality of Life) Indices for Society, and their use
To look at this properly requires a combination of an appropriate indicator system, together with sound systems thinking and modeling . The latter is fairly well developed, and is receiving a lot of attention. It is particularly the indicator system that requires further development, and three aspects may be noted here. They are the need for:
When such a systematic approach has been developed, the proposal needs implementation in trial projects at all three geographic levels, and then introduction as a serious monitoring system – perhaps in conjunction with the Earth Charter initiative, for it could provide a way of concretising the goals set out in that initiative.
e: Extension to Model of Group – Environment interaction. A crucial issue is the tension between environment desiderata and human needs. Both aspects must be taken seriously , both in terms of inevitable costs of any development that provides a living habitat or industrial opportunities, and in terms of recognition of human role in shaping the environment (there is no longer any ‘natural’ environment we can hope to return to). Thus there is a trade-off between the needs for economic development and environmental well-being; nevertheless sustainability remains an essential goal, and creative policy can go a long way towards minimising the cost of economic development, which can never be zero, because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The kind of creative initiatives that are needed are presented in Natural Capitalism , giving Amory and Hunter Lovins’ views of a technologically and environmentally sound future, demonstrated in practice on their farm in the Rocky Mountains. The need here is to link the quality of life indicator system to a good systems model of the human interaction with the environment.
f: Extension to values: indices of acceptability of the underlying philosophical/ ethical position. As in many other cases, the Ellis-Erlank proposal as developed so far deliberately refrains from judging the goals of the society considered, rather being designed to reflect the degree to which they are able to attain whatever goals they may have chosen for themselves. However as has been commented above, this is no longer adequate: policy goals are crucial and must be ethically adequate, hence there is a need for an indicator system that can model this aspect and assign quality ratings to the set of goals chosen and hence to the underlying ethical position. An extension of the Ellis-Erlank model (based on a feedback system in which the chosen goals form an essential component, and hence can be explicitly characterised) should make this possible; any alternative system that may be adequate should also be considered.
A: Individual/group issues – quality of individual human rights.
B: Group/group issues: racism, genderism etc – group human rights, justice, and peace themes.
C: Group/environment issues – degree to which this interaction is synergistic or antagonistic.
D: Theory/praxis relation – degree to which the underlying values are reflected in practice, raising issues of responsibility, accountability, and honesty, and consistency of means used with proclaimed ends.
E: Humility and openness issues – degree of openness to the evidence as to the real situation.
F: Integration: depth and breadth of vision and understanding embodied in a realistic way.
Enhancing the indicator system in this way will involve taking a specific ethical stance that endorses these kinds of goals, and makes them the basis of the indicator system and hence of public policy.
C: Religious and Ethical Issues: Discernment, Kenosis, and Hope
The basis of sound practice is an explicit ethical stance. What is needed here is exploration of ways of enhancing ethical foundations and practice, taking into account particularly the strength it can be given by some kind of spiritual or religious foundation, but not excluding other foundations if they can be shown to have the required strength.
7: Methods of discernment and testing in Religion and Ethics
This means we need criteria of validity in each area, to separate the false or misleading or shallow from the true or enlightening or deep. In fact one can claim that this is a prerequisite towards more effective progress in these areas, and the kind of increase in production of knowledge in these areas that Sir John Templeton wishes for. Thus we need
a: Discernment in ethics, religion, and spirituality: analysis and practical development of processes of discernment aiming to separate out true and false in ethics, metaphysics, and religion.
Of course this is a tall order, but the need is essential. The point here is that religious history is a very sorry story in many ways, with practice often reflecting the diametric opposite of the claimed values of religious communities (I cite as conclusive proof, the Inquisition, the conquest of Mexico, and the burning of ‘heretics’ in England). Such a process of discernment, based on appropriate criteria, is essential in order to enable adoption of some specific religious and ethical positions to the exclusion of others. Without such a process, all religion is tainted by the unacceptable.
8. Kenosis and forgiveness in world religions and in practice
b: Issues of kenosis and forgiveness in all the major world religions and in practice. There are already some useful investigations of the existence of kenotic strands in all the major world religions , but the further need is for an examination by scholars who come from deep within each faith tradition of their understanding of these issues and their recommended practice in this regard.
I am confident that a workshop on this topic with suitable participants – for example, including those named above – will come up with a marvelous confirmation of this deep underlying unity between the faiths, when each is rightly understood at a deep level. Further work would deeply investigate how each faith understood kenosis, and made a reality of its transformational nature in personal and in public life, fully taking into account real world issues, and in particular building on the work of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. This study would also examine the problems with the idea raised by feminist theologians, and consider ways of broadening the concept and relating it to their concerns. On a theoretical level it would aim to relate the idea to the various social sciences, with explicit consideration of their ethical bases and assumptions , and consider whether there are suitable criteria that might determine when such an approach was appropriate or not in dealing with public violence.
9: Ways of handling divergence of opinion in religion and ethics
The problem for inter-faith dialogue is two-fold: first, how to handle different religious understandings and cognitive models between groups that agree on the fundamental methods of discernment. Second, how to handle attitudes and dialogue with groups that do not fall within this category (for example, one may find religious or cultural groups who believe in bodily mutilation as part of religious ceremony, or who still believe in the necessity of murdering the unfaithful). Here one encounters the age-old issues of judgement versus acceptance: trying to understand the other and empathise with them, not denying differences, but affirming common areas without compromise on essential values, and at all times recognising their status and dignity as human beings. An exploration of these issues from a theoretical and practicable standpoint would be valuable:
c: How to work together in a unity despite differences? Attitudinal and organisational issues. To make a reality of such inter-faith dialogue and co-operation will require a kenotic attitude on at least one side, hopefully leading eventually to such an approach on both sides. Specific organisational methods can help defuse some of the tensions that will inevitably arise.
Developing this kind of unity will benefit from the understandings developed under Section A, and will lead in to the possibility of sound co-operation as needed to make a reality of the aims of Section B on a global scale, when all faiths will be involved. It will feed into and benefit from the experiences arising out of the actions suggested in Section D. It is therefore an important pivotal point in relating the overall themes considered here, to real-world practice.
10. Issues of hope and reality.
This is a tension in any future vision: the balance between hope and ‘reality’. Related to this is the tension between principle and compromise: when should one hang on to one’s principles whatever the outcome, and when compromise to attain a best-practicable outcome that falls very short of what one hoped for?
d: How does one best handle the tension between hope and realism in policy making? Without the element of hope, of adopting a seemingly outrageously optimistic policy despite the odds, we will achieve little. How can we best decide when to act in this way, and when not to do so? In the end, this will be tied in to the element of faith; but what is practicable in terms of public policy choices?
Case studies of for example, Martin Luther King’s despair turning to a firm resolution to continue at a critical stage of his work, the South African transition in 1994, and Winston Churchill’s leadership role in England in the period 1939-1940 when victory looked unattainable, will usefully inform this discussion. There is a kenotic element here as well – giving up reliance on one’s intellectual understanding of the limits inherent in the situation, and having such faith in the possible positive outcome of the situation that one makes it happen. At the personal level, this relates to many issues in the relation between faith and health. This could eventually be a major direction of development of this strand.
D: Making a Difference
Finally, these theoretical discussions need to be imbedded in and informed by two kinds of practical action.
11. Creation of an ever-widening informed community of concern
a: Engage in intentional processes to support and help flourish and grow the international community that takes these issues seriously, and is committed to developing them in theory and in action.
This action can take many forms – meetings, discussion circles, joint action projects, newsletters, etc. It must emphasize certain features: the need for values-based leadership  and action , based on realistic values, as for example set out in the Earth Charter , with an underlying ethic motivating the whole that avoids derogatory attitudes towards opponents as well as the extremes of behavior where the means deny the stated goals; and with an openness to the possibility of an underlying spiritual/transcendent reality.
In brief, it should be a community in line with broad kind of integral vision promoted in this document. Its real-world application will depend on use of adequate Indicators, as discussed above, and recognition of the issues of complexity facing us, demanding complex systems analysis  and encouraging and developing a multi-dimensional integral view in analyzing social and organizational problems.
12. Implementation projects: action research and demonstration.
b: Local action programs: For example involvement in local Grameen Bank type initiatives in poor areas, or local environmental initiatives such as those of Amory and Hunter Lovins. These do not have to be large scale projects, but they should demonstrate a real involvement with developmental issues at the local level.
The experience attained in these projects will feed in to the philosophy and understanding of the overall project; on the other hand, that understanding will feed into and help shape these action projects. This is the essence of action research, forming the live link between theory and praxis that is essential for each to have vitality and a solid grounded quality.
E: Implementation: Project Proposal
Proposal: setting up an Institute of Integral Studies that would pursue these kinds of issues on the broad lines laid out above:
- Starting with a solid assessment of the current scientific, social, and environmental situations,
- Developing integral visions and understandings along the lines outlined here,
- Living and acting in accord with this overall view, aiming to create a community embodying this vision.
- Technical and popular writings, power point presentations, lectures, workshops, running associated meetings, media interviews,
- Linking in to www-net initiatives in this regard, and in particular to Joe Firmage’s internet project<http://www.onecosmos.net>,
- Networking with appropriate groups to help create an ever-widening group of concern,
- Alliances and collaborations with other groups where appropriate,
- An action arm that would be engaged in applications and so testing the theories in action.
Resources needed: There is a less ambitious, a more ambitious, and a least ambitious option, as follows.
Option A: Single Center
Project Staff: Overall Director, 4 Section Heads as per themes A-D presented above [the core team], Researchers forming teams in each section [2 to 3 in each section to begin with], Short term visitors [1 position equivalent in each section] = 12 to 16 positionsAdmin team: Admin Director, Finance director, between 2 and 4 assistants = 4 to 6 positions, Total positions = 21 to 2
7Infrastructure: Rent or buy building or other premises, furniture; Library, computers and network links.
Running costs and travel funding. Advisory Board Costs [Bi-annual meeting of suitable advisory board]. Meetings/seminar/workshop costs [These can be largely funded through separate grant applications, often piggy-backing off other initiatives]
Note 1: It should be anticipated that within two years of setting it up, outside interest would be sufficient that short term and long term self-funded visitors would at least treble the size of the working group – i.e. outside funding should more than treble the effectiveness of the investment
Note 2: To make the project work one would need initial guaranteed funding for 5 years so that one can offer positions for that length of time to the core team. If the project succeeds as it should, the case for further continuation of funding will be overwhelming. If it does not succeed, it should be closed down at that point.
Location: It should be near some groups of similar interests, and with good access to major international organizations such as those centered in New York and London. Costs will depend on this location choice. Possibilities include USA (perhaps near Haverford or Swarthmore, or associated with Emory University for example) or UK (Oxford, Cambridge, or some more rural setting).
Option B: Multiple Centers
European or American Center as proposed in Option A, plus an additional second similar center in a suitable place in the developing world, serving a vital role in terms of grounding the project in reality. This satellite center would initially be smaller than the main center proposed above: e.g. it might have
Project Staff: Overall Director, 4 Section Heads [the core team], researchers/post docs forming teams in each section [1 in each section to begin with], short term visitors [1 position equivalent in each section],
Admin team: Admin Director, Finance director, assistant = 3 positions, Total positions = 16
Added travel costs would occur for inter-center liaison [each Director should visit the other center between 4 to 6 times a year, so that they would see each other on something like a monthly basis.]
Clearly as time went on one would envisage a network of such centers developing. Significant issues would arise as to how they might relate to each other, and what kind of qualities might be required in order to accredit some other institution as belonging to a network of such institutes.
Option C: Institute at a distance.
Here one would appoint people to membership of the institute but not locate them at a central facility. Rather they would interact in the main via email and internet while being based at their separate institutions, which would second them to the Institute, and would arrange regular (quarterly?) meetings for staff to discuss issues in depth. This might work out effectively and enable considerable networking into other organisations, while saving some expense; but its logistics and practice would need careful consideration.
1. K Popper and J Eccles: The Self and its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (Springer, Berlin. 1977)
2. R Penrose: Shadows of the Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1994), section 8.7; The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
3. G F R Ellis: `Does the universe have a moral nature?’ Future Visions meeting, New York (2000), and see paper for Vatican/CTNS meeting on quantum physics (2000); to appear, proceedings, Ed. R Russell.
4. W E Paden: Interpreting the Sacred. (Beacon Press, Boston 1992).5. J Hick: The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm. Oneworld, Oxford, 1999).
6. A Race. Christians anmd Religious Pluralism. (SCM Press, 1993).
7. B and T Butler: Just Spirituality in a World of Faiths. (Mowbray, 1996).
8. For example, N A Campbell: Biology (Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City. 1990); J H Holland: Emergence: From Chaos to Order (Perseus Press, 1999).
9. For example, A Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and becoming – Natural and Divine (SCM Press, London, 1993); A Peacocke, N Murphy, and G Ellis in R J Russell et al (ed), Chaos and Complexity, Vatican/ CTNS series of books (Ed R Russell et al).
10. R B Laughlin: `Fractional Quantisation’. Reviews of Modern Physics 71, (1999) 863-8
711. R Ackoff, talk at the State of the World Forum; “From Mechanistic to Social Thinking” (Pegasus, 1996); Ackoff’s Best: His Classic Writings in Management (Wiley and Sons, 1999).
12. H J Morowitz, talk at the Future Visions Meeting.
13. Sylvan Schweber: `Physics, Community, and the Crisis in Physical Theory’. Physics Today, November 1993, 34-40.
14 See e.g. R Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind. (Oxford University Press, 1989).
15. See e.g. N Murphy, in Neuroscience and the Person, Ed R J Russell et al (Vatican Observatory/CTNS series), and references therein.
16. Attempted in an interesting way by Brian Swimme in The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos (Orbis Books, 1996).
17. T Hanh, The Miracle of Mindfulness (Rider/Random House, 1991).18. W Teasdale, “Towards an Integral Vision”. Future Visions Position Paper # 004.
19. See G F R Ellis, Before the Beginning. (Bowerdean/Boyars, 1993), and N Murphy and G F R Ellis: On the Moral Nature of the Universe. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 1997), for one particular view. An opposing integral view is given in E O Wilson’s book Consilience (A Knopf, 1998), criticised heavily, for example, in W. Berry: Life is a Miracle (Counterpoint, 2000).
20. E D Hirsch: Cultural Literacy: What every American needs to know (Vintage Books, 1988).
21. F J Rutherford and A Ahlgren: Science for all Americans. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1990).
22. National Research Council: National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, 1996).
23. Many talks at the State of the World meeting, and see e.g. “Key Technologies for the 21st Century”, Scientific American Special Issue (W Freeman, 1996); P Hawken, A Lovins, and H Lovins, Natural Capital: Creating the next Industrial Revolution (Little Brown and Co: 1999); The Transition to Sustainability: A Statement of the World’s Scientific Academies (May 2000); World Bank, Entering the 21st Century: World Development Report. (Oxford University Press, 2000).
24. See http://www.earthcharter.org
25. For an example of a values-based analysis of current public policy, see G F R Ellis: South Africa: The complex of problems (preprint, 2000).
26. For a brilliant general exposition, see D A Norman: The Design of Everyday Things (1990).
27. R Landauer: The trouble with computers: Usefulness, Usability, and Productivity. (MIT Press, 1995).
28. Stated for example by Joe Firmage at the Future Visions meeting.
29. H Henderson, J Lickerman, and P Flynn (Ed), Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators: a New Tool for Assessing National Trends (Calvert Group, 2000). The indicators cover Education; Employment; Energy; Environment; Health; Human Rights; Income; Infrastructure; National Security; Public Safety; Re-Creation; and Shelter.
30. American Council for the United States University: Global Challenges for Humanity. UN Millennium Summit and Forum Special Edition. (New York, 2000).
31. UNDP, Human Development Report, Oxford University Press (1999).
32. Stafford Beer, Brain of the Firm (Wiley, 1981); R Flood and E Carson, Dealing with Complexity (Plenum Press, 1988); Russell Ackoff, op cit.
33. G F R Ellis and D Erlank: “A quality of life and basic needs measurement system with application to Elsie’s River. ” SALDRU Working Paper No 56 (1983); G F R Ellis: “An overall framework for Quality of Life evaluation schemes, with application to the Ciskei (South Africa)”. In Social Development and the Third World, Ed J G M Hilhorst and M Klatter (Croom Helm, 1985), 63-90; G F R Ellis, “The Dimensions of Poverty”. Social Indicators Research 15, 229-253 (1984).
34. A Sen: Commodities and Capabilities. (Oxford India Paperbacks, 1999).
35. W F Baxter: People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution. (Columbia University Press, 1974).
36. See http://www.rmi.org .
37. The Earth Charter Commission, see http://www.earthcharter.org
38. J Edwards, The Religious Affection (first published 1746; reprinted, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991); and see the sections on `discernment’ in On the Moral Nature of the Universe, op cit, and in Hicks, op cit..
39. Murphy and Ellis, op cit.
40. Sir John Templeton: Agape Love: A tradition found in eight world religions. (Templeton Press, 1999).
41. See the discussion of these issues in Murphy and Ellis, op cit.
42. T Peters and R H Waterman, In Search of Excellence (Warner Books, 1982), see particularly quote by J M Burns on pages 83-85; Stephen Covey, Principle Centered Leadership (Simon and Schuster, 1992).
43. for example, Muhammad Yunus at the Forum, and see http://www.grameen-info.org
44. Earth Charter, op cit.
45. Ackoff, op cit.
46. S Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982); Murphy and Ellis, op cit.