Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Climate Change is a multiple object

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
I’m going to start in a kind of a high level and see if I can backfill it in a way that makes sense to you and people who would be watching us For me over the last couple of years I’ve been focused on Climate Change as a multiple object and drawing on ontology, the theory of what exists, and strong powerful philosophical traditions, to understand that CC isn’t a singular object, it’s not just one single thing that is out there but rather multiple objects It’s an object in that is definitely out there, it has the status of being real and actual like it is happening, so real acknowledgement and embrace of the urgency and the severity of the full devastating dimensions of CC as we are experiencing it now and likely how we will experience it in the near future and longer So there is a recognition that is an object, it has the status of being real, it’s happening, but then recognizing that is multiple, that when we talk about CC, different people are talking about it we are often talking about slightly different aspects or different dimensions or qualities of CC, so that the CC the oceanographer is talking about is often different than the CC the methereologist is talking about and just often different than the CC the computer modeler is talking about, so when you start looking at the relationships between the different methods that we use to study CC and the point that those methods are often connected to particular discourses about CC and so by recognizing that CC is a multiple object for me it actually helps free up and liberate the space of action because a lot of the rhetoric out there assumes that CC is a single object and that this person happens to have the correct point of view of what that single object is so like the focus might become, emphasize on parts per million ppm that we need to get down from 383 to 350, ppm, and if CC is defined simply as esentially ppm then yes actually that would be the best action to take but there’s a lot of other methods, and techniques that highlight different, dimensions and layers of cc so by recognizing that is a multiple, complex, reality, and so instead of trying to fight over, whose version of climate change is correct actually having a framework that allows us to recognize the multiplicity of cc the multiple dimensions and layers, of it so that we can validate in, and embrace the many different kinds of cc’s that are happening and then support action on multiple fronts simultaneously that are addressing these different objects of cc And so for me that has been a really interesting inquiry around how we might going get out of this polarized rhetorical strategic dynamic that really characterizes much of the cc discourse and activity, and frame it up so that by having a more sophisticated framework, as to the actual ontological status of cc, then we can identify the leverage points that often get overlooked when people are fighting over their particular version of “cc is this” “no no no” other people say “cc is that”, and other people say “no no no cc is this” and that obscures the powerful leverage points that we might identify between and across these different views of cc And by recognizing that all of these views of cc have something important to offer us then that allows what I call ontological coordination and epistemological coordination and methodological coordination so we can start to coordinate the worldviews and perspectives on CC (epistemology) we can start coordinate the methods we use to study cc (methodology) and we can start coordinating the complex ontological or real aspects of cc so the integral framework for me provides us a way of engage in this kind of complex coordination of these multiple variables and dimensions Yea, meta strategy, and I wouldn’t coordinate all of them, but at least I would have a framework that has the capacity potential to coordinate more and more and more it’s not jus recognizing the complexity in terms of the systemic aspects because often complexity is thought in terms of, in the integral model lower right systemic ecological political, economic, educational realities, so not just that kind of complexity but the complexity of inter-subjective worldviews, complexity of first person and phenomenological experiences, of how do I relate to nature, how do we relate to what is happening to the planet what is my direct experience of that so working with complexity, integral complexity that recognizes the complexity of my first person experience, and our second person experience and then this larger 3rd person experience, so epistemologies, methodologies and then ontologies that is a great question, because what I am presenting is a very complex kind of philosophical theoretical and I believe that has a lot of pragmatic value to that, so I think it is a crucial question that you are asking because I do believe that there is an easy bridge and one of them is I find a lot of cc activists and scientists and people who are really engaged in these issues that are hungry for an integrated framework they are recognizing that a lot of the frameworks that we are using are falling short in important ways and so I think that one of the ‘how’s’ is finding ways to communicate elements of the integral approach, whether they be frameworks around worldviews or frameworks around methodologies of our practices scientifically studying cc or weather is frameworks around ontology, which is a little more complex you know so I think that starting with introducing people to some of the integral frameworks that helps us understand the value of multiple methods of study, of a phenomenon like cc introducing frameworks of worldviews that helps us understand the truth and partiality of different perspectives people seem in my experience to be very hungry and capable of taking that in and they are very interested and have good questions so I think just communicating, some of the integral principles, some of the framework is a very powerful starting point for getting the attention of the leadership,because they are really eager and hungry for integrated approaches, because cc is such a complex issue that anything less than some kind of integrative approach is likely going to fall short and we already have 10 years of witnessing of that being the case so I think that part of it is just dialogue, getting out there and presenting some integrative frameworks and seen what works for people and learn how to develop these frameworks more fully, to fit a cc context one place that supports that pollination process, recently the journal of integral theory and practice that had 2 special issues in cc, and showcases 14 articles including work by Chris Riedy who is here, Karen O'Brien, Gail Hochachka and Tim Winton all of them here, this week, and it presents 14 individuals presenting how they apply integral principles to cc initiatives and these are all on the ground solid practitioners who are active that have great theory to drawn, have very clear pragmatic issues that they are trying to address so they are bringing together the theory and practice so those 14 articles provide a great touch stone for people that are interested in this kind of thing to see how does this really look like the devil is in the detail, they provide very clear examples of what an integral approach to cc looks like, so those articles are the basis of an emergent conversation between integral practitioners who are applying these principles to cc and us who are starting to talk with each other, so that is kind of an important piece getting the people heard who are doing this already in their own professional lives and start to talk to each other and build a unitive mode that you were describing so beautifully so that we are way more capable and skillfully at taking that out into the wider realms of professional activity that we are on involved in I think that for me, the getting worse piece is just to continue to deepen and open my heart around the grief that is happening and really staying connected to the pain of the situation, and allowing myself to really take that in, so it’s to deepen my personal practice of staying in contact with that which is painful and is increasingly becoming more and more painful so that I am plugged in to that layer that serves as the source of motivation and activity The getting better is for me, publishing that journal with these 2 issues and then being part of the conversation between Tim and Karen and Chris Riedy and you and others who are very interested in knowing what is to take integral principles and then applying them into something big and global like cc so for me the getting better is personally manifest and continue those conversations and explore how might we work together on this, And then the always already perfect is just simply my practice of taking in a big breath and just keeping my eyes open to Reality and just say Here I am, let’s see what happens?

Video Details

Duration: 11 minutes and 48 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: Clima Integral
Director: Juan Pablo Rico
Views: 137
Posted by: climaintegral on Sep 15, 2010

Interview to Sean Esbjörn-Hargens Ph.D. associate professor and founding Chair of the Integral Theory Program at John F. Kennedy University by Juan Pablo Rico from Clima Integral
Integral sustainability seminar
Mount Madonna California August 2010

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.