by Marcus Anthony
Richard Slaughter has made some strong points and arguments in his reflections upon my “NotsoIntegral Futures” article, but appears to have misunderstood my overall intention. Here I will address a few points he made and add a few more insights of my own on the subject.
Firstly, the article was not meant to be an extensive critique of post-conventional futures studies and Integral Futures as a whole. It was made in reference to what I saw and experienced at that conference in November 2005, as was made clear in the article. I took a sometimes light-hearted look at events (and myself) in a deliberate attempt to invite some gentle and unthreatening self-reflection. It was not a criticism of Richard Slaughter’s work or the academic work being done at the Australian Foresight Institute or elsewhere. Of course, I made reference to possible implications for Integral and post-conventional Futures – but based predominantly upon my experience at that conference. This was my intention above all else – to express an introspective account of some sense of guilt I felt at many conference participants and myself having missed an opportunity to engage Michio Kaku at a more intimate level. I felt there was a deeper symbolism and resonance that lay behind the events of those few days.(continue…)