Russ: There were a couple of themes in your closing statement in Part 1 that I would like to return to before we begin exploring mapping and applications (of course there may arise a variety of themes that we will want to explore before, during and after the more “practical” aspects of our conversation). The first of these themes was spirituality. It seems to me that the place of spirituality in theory, methodology and practice is at the heart of integral theory—not in isolation, of course, but as an equal partner with rationality or with the observable. It is equal in the sense of that science and spirituality represent two very different ways of “knowing,” the second theme. This perspective is at the heart of Wilber’s work and everything that follows is predicated by this position.
The Marriage of Sense and Soul is but one of Wilber’s efforts at addressing the question of integration, of what it means to be integral, by embracing both ways of knowing. I anticipate that his Integral Spirituality, which is just being published, will include some of his most recent thinking on this subject. This relationship between ways of knowing also is at the heart of his perspectives in the holons.
Now I don’t want to go on representing (or misrepresenting) Wilber’s work or conflating the stages of the development of integral theory in his writing. But I do want to get at the heart, the underlying assumptions (beliefs/reported experiences) and constructs that allow us to play with integral theory as a device for enhancing out understanding of leadership, its development and its practice (LDP). In fact, one of the members of the Integral Institute, Kurt Koller, has recently posted an article on Frank Visser’s website that helps us lay this foundation.
Briefly, I want to mention a couple of things that we can take leverage in exploring integral theory and LDP and hope that I do them justice. In any case, Mark, I leave it to you to clarify and sharpen this so that we have a shared understanding as we proceed. The first of these is the idea of perspectives. This is a construct that suggests in each of 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons there are two perspectives: the perspective from inside and the perspective from outside. The implication for LDP is that all of these perspectives are relevant in any leadership event. By pursuing an integral approach we are suggesting that the diversity of perspectives in theory and practice can be integrated.
Aside: Koller mentions two levels of integration. One is paradigmatic (“…an attempt to gain acquaintance with all of the methodologies of inquiry generally available to us” using the principle of nonexclusion) and the other is metaparadigmatic (how the methodologies fit together, “…the house rules, or rather, the guidelines for relations within and between paradigms” using the principles of enfoldment and enactment. Koller goes on to state, “Enfoldment implies that along any developmental line, some truth claims are greater…than others, that a basic patter of ‘transcend and include’ prevails.” He continues, “Enactment reminds us that different methodologies bring forth different data domains,” that is, according to Wilber, “the phenomena brought forth by various types of human inquiry will be different depending on the quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types of the subjects bringing for the phenomena.”
It seems to me that even in this brief summary, the core of a Wilberian integral approach has been suggested. And this core is built on the idea that knowledge comes from three sources (also summarized by Koller): The senses, cognition and meaning making, and spirit. Thus, if we are to take an integral approach we will seek to treat these ways of knowing concurrently in the processes of taking either paradigmatic or metaparadigmatic strategies for LDP.
Now, how well Wilber accomplishes this (or not) in his modelling and mapping is another subject. And I know that there are additional considerations to take around these topics and I look forward to exploring those with you. For example, there are the questions of mapping 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives and the representation of the dynamic relationships among them in any occurrence. But the question I would like to focus on first is that of the three ways of knowing and their implications for how we build LDP.
Mark: You raise a whole bunch of interesting issues here, Russ. I hardly know where to start. With regard to the place of spirituality in integral theory its apparent that spirituality has always been at the core of what Wilber has been on about for the past 30 years. All of his writings have had the very explicit purpose of describing how we might make sense of spirituality, and particularly contemplative traditions, in the light of contemporary science and philosophy. This was the thing that first attracted me to his work in the early 1980’s (after the recommendations of the Benedictine monk Dom Bede Griffith).
I think that Anselm’s famous dictum – faith seeks understanding—is highly relevant to this whole quest (I take “faith” here not as meaning “belief” but rather in the Pauline sense of “the evidence of things not seen”, that is, the intimation of the deep mystery in which we all participate). We all, in some way, find profound meaning in the events and experiences that make up our lives and it is definitively human that we try to understand those events. In my opinion this sense-making endeavour is the driving force behind all knowledge quests—East and West, ancient and modern and postmodern. Whether it be Richard Dawkins or Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, or Ramana Maharshi or Noam Chomsky—it is the pursuit of knowledge in the face of deep mystery that drives us to explore new avenues of being and doing. This is why many people start reading Ken Wilber. They respond to his obvious passion for constructing an explanatory system that includes both spirituality and rationality. Of course for Wilber, spirituality has multiple meanings and it is not limited to any particular field of knowledge and so his sense-making efforts range far and wide.
In terms of an integral approach to spirituality in the workplace and in leadership, I think that there’s a huge potential there to explore new ways of seeing and enacting the spiritual. To this point integral philosophy has focused almost exclusively on individual and interior paths to spiritual experience. There’s been little recognition of sacramental and relational forms of authentic spirituality, i.e. those forms of spirituality that have been most associated with western religious traditions. I understand that this has recently changed and Wilber’s new work deals in some depth with relational forms of spirituality. But, generally I think that integral approaches have placed too much emphasis on the role of consciousness (Upper Left quadrant) in the development of spiritualy. This is understandable given the neglect of these forms of spirituality in western religious traditions. But it’s time we also recognised the role of what might be called behavioural forms of spirituality (see Edwards, 1999).
In contemporary society in general, there is a neglect of not only of personal forms of contemplative meditation and but also of interpersonal, communal and sacramental forms of spirituality. And it is precisely these forms of spirituality which have most relevance to our work lives. In integral terms, these are spiritualities that are to do with the right-hand quadrants of personal and social behaviour and with social roles and social structures. Such spiritualities have immediate relevance to our work lives and to our social lives as workers, neighbours, consumers, shoppers, employers, electors, community members, etc. It is in these exterior and collective realms of relational spirituality, communal service, ethical practice, religious ritual, pilgrimage, and sacramental spirituality that we find the transformative power of community at work. In a sense, these are exoteric forms of spirituality and I think they actually complement and balance esoteric forms of spirituality. Contemplative meditation and contemplative action are two faces of the same spirit. Meditation without “right livelihood” is a form of self-indulgent quietism. “Service” without contemplative awareness often leads to self-righteous arrogance or the type of overbearing egotism that we see among many TV evangelists.
In Catholicism (and Christianity in general for that matter) the dominant spiritual path has been the way of service, of giving through encounter with the other in relationship, through community and through love as a social practice. Most Western saints and revered persons have come out of this tradition of a spirituality of service; a spirituality that is based on communal and relational action as a transformational journey. The mystic path of inner prayer has had a crucial but rather ancillary role to play in the development of spirituality in Western Catholicism. Even the contemplatives orders like the Benedictines and Cistercians practice a cenobitic form of the contemplative life that has as much to do with communal prayer as with personal meditation. There is a second-person, relational and social heart to the spirituality of the West that is not revealed to the same degree in Eastern spiritualities. This communal path of mysticism can be contrasted in many way with the contemplative paths of the East. Wilber’s writings on spirituality come out of the mysticism of personal interior mediation and he has never, to my knowledge, dealt with the ways that collective ritual and behavioural practices like service can lead to spiritual transformation. Both contemplative meditation and authentic service are profound forms of practice that deal with the metamorphosis of human identity. I am not speaking here about balancing ones inner and outer life, e.g. including physical exercise or community work or artistic expression as complements to meditation. I mean that identity can be transformed not only though the transformation of consciousness but also through behavioural, cultural, and social forms of spiritual practice and each of these paths offer authentic gateways into the human experience of profound intimacy. The following table lists some of the transformative forms of spirituality according to Wilber’s quadrant’s model.
Table 1: A basic taxonomy of spiritual disciplines according to the four-quadrant model
I seem to be meandering into various topics here, Russ, so I’ll circle back to some of the points you raised earlier. I think that integral philosophy to this point has emphasised the first-person individual forms of spirituality (UL) and neglected the second-person and communal forms (LL, LR, UR). There is a clear contrast in the emphases that Eastern and Western spiritual traditions make on different aspects of life. And, in many important ways, I see them as complementing each other. Where the spiritualities of the East focus on a first-person, experiential pathway to personal enlightenment, the spiritualities of the West are more concerned with a second-person, relational pathway to social emancipation (in Catholic parlance a “fellowship of the Holy Spirit”). One of the great privileges of living at this particular point in history is that these two fundamental orientations towards spirituality, the first-person path to enlightenment of the East and the second person path to emancipation of the West, are truly encountering each other for the first time as equals. I hope that what comes out of this meeting will be a more balanced spirituality which recognises that the personal and the social, the intra-personal experiential being and the inter-personal of relational doing, are both essential aspects of what we might regard as spiritual.
From this perspective, it’s clearly not adequate to regard spirituality as a personal practice, as something to do with the interior transformation of the individual. An integral theory of spirituality needs to be much more than a theory about individuals. It is also a matter of how the collective “We” sees the divine in “Us” and in “You”, and in “All of You” (including the natural world). It’s a matter of how we discover and experience the Spirit in the outsider, how the community gives of itself in order to know itself.
The L’Arche communities founded by Jean Vanier are a living example of this type of transformational community. This sort of spirituality happens “wherever two or three are gathered” and, I believe that there is an immense opportunity to bring the transformational potential of this kind of collective spirituality into the workplace. The workplace is really where most people expend much of their physical and mental energy. Why shouldn’t it also be a place where we express spiritual energy? Organisations have immense power in today’s world and if spirituality is going to mean anything in a globalised world then it must stand for something in the world of our work. It needs to be present in our encounters with others, in the quality and meaning of our work, in the moral and ethical value of our work, in our service and in what we produce. I think that we Westerners often cherry pick the Eightfold Noble path of the Buddha. We tend to focus on the meditative streams of right effort, mindfulness and concentration and ignore the behavioural and social streams of right speech, right action and right livelihood. Right livelihood in particular is as much part of the way of Buddhism as any meditational practice. If our work is involved in commercial practices or industries that injure any part of the spiral of life how can it be “right livelihood”. Our meditation needs to open up our awareness to the “rightness” of our actions as workers, consumers, and citizens in ways that confront our conventional identities. If it doesn’t then it isn’t transformative.
I might also say that workplace spirituality needs to be present in an organisation’s actions (as much as in an individual’s actions), through corporate social responsibility, ethical behaviour and sustainability. The good news is that we can all be leaders in this transformative movement in and through our work on a daily basis – in the decisions we make, in the goals we set, in the types of relationships we form, in the consciousness we bring to bear, and in the priorities we set for our own work, or that of our team, our department, or our organisation.
I feel that contemporary life is in desperate need for an integration of first and second-person (and, for that matter, the third person and indigenous spiritualities of Nature) that can guide the transformative development of people in community. All the great religious traditions have held these personal and relational potentials in different ways. But, it’s also clear that contemporary Western religions have ignored and neglected their wonderful traditions of first-person contemplative practices. Similarly, Eastern religions have turned a blind eye to the second-person, social dimension of the human spirit, and have focused almost solely on their meditation-based traditions to the detriment of the social and political emancipation of their communities. To put it in rather crude terms the meeting of the spiritual East and the spiritual West is the meeting of esoteric forms of interior emancipation with exoteric forms of exterior emancipation respectively. I hope that both traditions will be invigorated in that meeting and that organisations and leaders across the world can benefit from the outcomes that flow from this encounter.
I think that the organisational setting and the workplace are very interesting venues for seeing how this meeting of social and personal transformation will play out. In meeting the challenges of economic, social, environmental and ethical responsibilities, organisational leaders (and organisational leadership as a distributed and participatory reality) will need to combine both first and second person spiritualities in some way. Nancy Eggert has written a very interesting book on this topic (Eggert, 1998) and there are probably more in a similar vein that you know of Russ. What’s your feeling as to how the relationship between leadership and spirituality will develop in coming years?
Russ: This is an excellent overview of the subject, Mark. And how the relationship between leadership and spirituality will develop is an important question, but one that I don’t feel qualified to answer. Rather, I am interested in how the inclusion of spirituality in our understanding of leadership, the development of leaders and the practice of leading influences the ability of different camps or theoretical orientations can dialogue and find common ground for building an integral approach to leadership. You see, the question I was really raising is more about behaviorist approaches to knowing that have excluded spirituality as a legitimate subject to include in understanding development and leadership.
Recently, I have been witness to some discussions about the relationships between scientific method and spirituality. Nothing conclusive came from these, mind you, but what I glean is that there are those who would resist including anything that is not observable, right quadrants. Well, there are streams of thought in leadership that agree with this.
Frank Visser (2006) has recently published a chapter in his new book. He seems to be getting at this same issue.
In their view of the world, human beings make a distinction between that which we can know, and that which we cannot know, between the rational and the irrational, between that which can be understood and that which remains a mystery, between the sacred and the profane. Modern science, philosophy and religion in general agree on the location of the dividing line between the knowable and the unknowable, as we will see. In the traditional worldview this dividing line is drawn elsewhere. Because of this, it enlarges our knowledge of the world enormously. The world as such is said to consist of many worlds or spheres. When many spheres are believed in, the question arises as to the nature of the dividing lines between these spheres. Are they absolute, or only gradual? Some are seen as more important than others. In this chapter, we will focus on these dividing lines.
It seems to me that this is in harmony with Wilber’s notions of internal and external views leading to integral methodological pluralism, although Visser may avoid some of the problems you have with the nature of Wilber’s construct. I will let you speak to that.
My interest is in bringing all of these perspectives to the table in the development of our understanding of leadership. I am looking for the path that brings the representatives of different perspectives into dialogue on the subject of leadership. By so doing we have an opportunity for mining the wealth of information and insights that each can contribute to building an integral approach, for fleshing out the quadrants of leadership occurrences, if you will. As Wilber says, “No one is smart enough to be wrong all of the time.” Consequently, finding the value added of all theoretical and methodological approaches seems to me to be important.
Yet, our rational orientations still cause us to long for “Knowing.” We want to find ways to make sure something is “True” or “Not True.” Falsifiability is an example of one such scientific principle that challenges us in the left quadrants. We can get to knowing through observation on the right side, but the only path to knowing on the left is through the collection of data that cannot be tested, other than comparisons of reports that may or may not be comparable.
We can really jump headfirst into a maelstrom of material about science, spirituality, religion and scepticism in its Buddhist or its Western traditions. But that is not my intention here. Correspondingly there is the mire of isms that plague these inquiries. Attention to the right quadrants but not the left may be seen as scientism or behaviorism or materialism. Attention to the left into spiritualism or simply be dismissed as New Age-ism.
Perhaps this raises the questions of the role of phenomenology in our inquiries, in our knowing. This methodology is not about judging so much as it is about collecting data, observing and reporting on observations. Yet, what are the implications of advocating such a methodology in a world of science and rationality? What issues of legitimacy are raised and how can we respond to them so that we bridge the distance rather than drive a wedge. One way to answer such question is that we are trying to surface the assumptions of our paradigms so that we can better discern how to bridge them, how to shift into a metapardigmatic stance and understanding.
Michael Shermer wrote as part of a description of a seminar on Science and Spirituality he led at Esalen Institute (just down the road from where I live!):
I defined the spirit as the pattern of information of which we are made—our genes, proteins, memories, and personalities. In this sense, spirituality is the quest to know the place of our spirit within the deep time of evolution and the deep space of the cosmos. Although there are many paths to spirituality, I believe that science gives us the deepest possible sense of grandeur and wonder about our place in time and space.
Well, there is no doubt that there has been a surge of interest in the last few decades at finding the place where science and spirit cohabit. It seems to me that Shermer—this ultimate skeptic!—has defined spirit in a way that shifts us from the purely rational, scientific view of “reality”. Furthermore, I am struck with the apparent agreement between Shermer and the primary element of the Perennial Philosophy that Wilber has continually promoted, namely the developmental, evolutionary aspect of humans and of spirituality.
Again, raising this issue is not about questioning the internal/external, agentic/communal in integral theory or mapping. It is much more about the mappers, the theorists and how to bridge the gap, bridge the distances among them in a common effort to build an integrating framework and understanding of leadership. I raise this question because in the material that we will be exploring I hope we are creating a container that can include, rather than, divide. How “green” of me, I suppose. Except that I think this can be done integrally.
The distinctions you point to related to the more individually and collectively oriented aspects of spirituality seem to me to be important elements for showing how an integral framework can include these different perspectives and methodologies without excluding any. Wilber’s integral methodological pluralism provides an important example of how to build an integrating framework.
These are important questions for other reasons as well. The inclusion of moral and ethical considerations in leadership and the judgement of these across cultures are two examples. It seems to me that you are suggesting that for the first time we have an opportunity to integrate the diversity of moral and ethical positions that are based on different spiritual and religious traditions. The same could be said of economic and political ideologies: we are at a time in history where the potential for integrating and more effectively managing the conflicts among diverse perspectives has never been greater. First there is paradigmatic integration, the metapardigmatic integration. It is into this realm that I look forward to our conversation moving in such a way that those with diverse perspectives on the subject of leadership can participate through engagement with this dialogue, as well as sharing their responses to it.
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not suggesting there is some idyllic place for us to get to through this process. Rather, the integral approach provides us with a framework for building a path, a process of differentiation and integration, that offers a viable alternative to destroying human life on Earth. The study, development and practice of leadership are essential to this process with the understanding that leadership is about the collective, as well as the individual. It is about the agentic and communal. It is about what can and cannot be measured. It is about the movie of unfolding and creating, not just the snapshot of the hero, of the episode. It is about the dance, the dance of hope in an otherwise very, very scary world.
Mark: Wonderful and profound thoughts Russ. Your words here inspire me to ask you this: From your own very extensive personal experience of leadership and of interviewing leaders, how do you see integral theory contributing to this issue of making spirituality something that has weight in the behavioural world of organisational goals, performance management, and outcomes-based budgeting? In other words how do you see integral approaches as making spirituality “real” for the world of running organisations and doing business?
Russ: Seems you have turned the tables on me here. One of the reasons I raised this issue with you is because I believe you have a commitment to a spiritual tradition. I do not. I do not have direct experience of any higher levels of spiritual development that I am aware of. I don’t know from direct experience that such a thing exists. Absent that, how can I know that claims to such states are anything less than delusional? Fine delusions to have, to be sure! Well, some of the time.
I look to role models, but I can’t be sure what I am looking for. Is it the calm clarity of a Diane Hamilton (ILR April 2005, an Integral Institute trainer, student of Genpo Roshi and who has an active role in the Integral Life Practice training, particularly the Big Mind process)? Is it the sharp-witted Ken Wilber, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, Andrew Cohen, Mother Teresa, Father Charlie Moore, etc., etc. I haven’t a clue. Each is so different from the other and I see virtually no common thread.
So, I find myself translating (I hope that is a useful word here) the notion of the spiritual to questions of ethics and morals. After overcoming the temptation to move into a Sunday School response and then postmodernist relativism I am aware I have not foundation for establishing ethics and morals beyond the passive ambiguity of doing no harm or the active commitment to sustainability.
Your questions about how do I see this being applied to the hard world of organizations and business are most appropriate. The answer is that I don’t know. And, I suspect, there are large number of leadership theorists, developments and practitioners who don’t know, either. That is why I turn to the likes of Cindy Wigglesworth (ILR August 2006) and Thierry Pauchant (ILR August 2004) for hints.
From Cindy we can take the clear integral perspective that development up the ladder in spiral/integral terms includes spiritual development (is it a line or a stage or both?) as one of the lines of development. She makes a strong case for increasing effectiveness and development at the higher stages of Cook-Greuter (ILR February 2003) ) and Torbert’s (ILR August 2002) approaches. This suggests that one answer to the question of how the level of spiritual development is important is because it corresponds to high levels of skill development that are required for engaging effectively with increasing complexity (or recognition of it). Also, there is preliminary evidence that higher stages of development are more effective in transformative change. This has relevance for dealing withy complexity and for integrating a major theme in leadership theory that either says leadership doesn’t exist unless there is real change (Rost, ILR July 2005) or that leadership is inherently transformative (James MacGregor Burns and various schools of transformational leadership). From Thierry I take a principle of working from hypotheses and testing these in our research in organizations. Ian Mitroff’s work is exemplary in exploring how spiritual orientation affects the workplace.
In summary, I am suggesting that the question of how we integrate “left quadrant” ways of knowing with “right quadrant” ways of knowing in a way that can attract those focused on either side to bring their work together into a coherent whole is precisely to question and what we are trying to discover. How about you, Mark? I think your work is about this, as well.
Mark: My take on this is that the worlds of the spirit and work arise together and support each other. When we work well and do good work we are giving expression to our spiritual identity—which for me includes all interiors and exteriors in themselves and in their relation to others. Our spiritual identity includes both our consciousness and our behaviour as individual persons and in organised groups. If our work behaviour is not supporting the healthy unfolding of our lives and that of others then it will close down the natural expression of spirituality in our lives. If we are unhappy in our work and we see it as essentially meaningless then we are stifling out spirit. It is not sufficient that we work away in some field to fulfil either the basic needs or acquisitive desires of ourselves or our families. Personal work is now a global issue. It does not respect the traditional boundaries of organisational, regional, national or international boundaries. The results of our work flow out from the workplace in the same way that the atmosphere flows out across the planet, not paying attention to any boundaries that organisations all governments might wish to impose. The impact of the carbon emissions from a single car are felt globally and the same might be said of our work. What we produce and consume on a personal level competes with what is produced and consumed by other people from every community. The increasing degree of economic interconnection means that we need a sense of spirituality that connects us to all people and to all communities and it is this challenge that integral approaches to spirituality need to meet if they are to have relevance in the coming decades.
A spirituality that is based on personal transformation will not be adequate to respond to the global communal challenges that we face in so many areas. It is becoming more critical that our work be seen within the context of collective spiritual development. I agree with you completely that this involves ethical and moral sensitivities that are fundamentally relational. By this I mean that spirituality needs to be seen as something more than transformation to more authentic levels of spiritual development, or the conversion of transpersonal states into stable stages, or the expression of the spirit within each developmental level. These are all very important and even crucial aspects of a spirituality that is adequate for the third millennium. However, an Integral approach to spirituality must first address the collective challenges that humanity faces at the global level. And in this context of work and organisational activity is perhaps the most powerful and pervasive influence that is currently driving worldwide changes within such lines as economics, education, health, agriculture and even global security. In essence, what I am saying is that spirituality is also inherent within the relationships that occur between people, between communities, between nations and that there is a great need for an integral spirituality that recognises “the spirit at work”, and the spirit within organisations and how these impact on global development at every level.
Russ: Okay, Mark, I think we have made a pretty good case for including all four quadrants in the exploration of leadership, for leadership is an essential phenomena in human systems that involve relationships at all of the levels you cite. So now, I hope we are ready to shift our attention to how integral mapping can help us find the way to bring together the wisdom, not just in spiritual traditions, but the multiple disciplines that have something important to our understanding of leadership, its development and practice.
There are already some efforts to embrace multiple perspectives. We find it in writing on executive leadership by Steve Zacarro, for example, and we find it in a newly published multidisciplinary book on Leadership by James MacGregor Burns that I am hoping to get my hands on in a few days. I think the field of leadership studies has been built of fragmented ideas and learning about leadership. It has been built on the foundation of the hero myth—not a bad myth for a foundation, but one that may have diverted our attention from the idea of leadership that is more integrally informed.
So, when we pick up this conversation for the next issue of Integral Leadership Review, I hope we can begin by focusing on the elements of integral models and maps. The place to start might be the four-quadrant holon that you introduced above. This model has had various treatments in the pages of the Integral Leadership Review, as well as your writing and mine. I look forward to exploring questions about what the quadrants represent and whether this mapping tool is appropriate for organizing and developing our learning about a social phenomenon like leadership. I want to raise the question of whether a six cell matrix might not bring significant value added. We can discuss the importance of the holon as an emerging whole, as well as the relationships among the quadrants or six cells. Equally relevant, a subject you have already discussed with Ken Wilber on Integral Naked, it the nature of individual versus collective holons.
How can this integral mapping methodology support us in evolving leadership theory, designing approaches to leadership development and guiding us to be more effective leaders? I know of no other approach with more promise and I look forward to the exchanges to follow.
- Edwards, M. G., 1999, ‘Pushing for the Collective in Wilber’s Integral Philosophy’. Available from: http://www.integralworld.net [Accessed: 16/6/04, 2004].
- Eggert, N., 1998, ‘Contemplative Leadership for Entrepreneurial Organisations: Paradigms, Metaphors and Wicked Problems’, Quorum Books, London.
- Koller, K. (2006). “The Data and Methodologies of Integral Science,” http://www.integralworld.net.
- Wilber, K. (2004). “Excerpt B,” http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptB/part2.cfm.
- Wilber, K. (1998). The Marriage of Sense and Soul. New York: Random House.