I got an email from Integral University yesterday.  Apparently, I haven't been accepted into the "beta testing" phase of Integral University.  There is simply too high an interest, and they are going with a smaller group.

I sent back an email, asking, "what is the criteria for acceptance?  Given that I work for a company that has an online learning management system, part of my daily job is quality assurance and product design on a Learning Management System, and in my weblog, I have been promoting Integral University, what is the criteria for acceptance?" 

I haven't gotten a response yet, although I still hope to. It's been 24 hours (am I impatient or what? )

Outside of the fact that I've had posts on the Beta, so clearly I'm going to be disappointed about that, there is a legitimate question to be asked:

Namely, on questions of inclusion/exclusion, is the criteria going to be open and transparent or not? 

For example, it could be that for IU beta testing, only 50 people are wanted for this testing (a low number I know, just throwing it out there.) However, 10,000 people want to be beta testers!  Clearly, some people must be excluded.

However, the criteria by which this is done, should be transparent, fair, and communicated to those of us who, ahead of time, are excited by the project, and have been promoting and contributing to the project (in some sense).

It may be as simple as, people who joined Integral Naked as a paying member before December 2003.  That was the cutoff (and that cutoff doesn't include me, as I joined Integral Naked in the latter part of 2004).  It may be those that have managed to attend and pay for workship in Colorado. (Or online).   Both of the above are acceptable, and a simple explanation is all that is required.

But an arbitrary "thanks for your interest but you have been excluded" without rhyme or reason, isn't really acceptable.  It is similar to an automated letter you receive from the HR depaartment of a company you apply to. 

My own opinion, take it for what it is worth, is it would be better to communicate a transparent criteria for exclusion/inclusion - that would be a better mode of creating community.  Decisions "made from on high", without explanation don't do the trick.

Since there are at least a couple of people connected to IU who read this blog, could you please forward this on to relevant parties? 

I'm also sure that everyone at IU, at the moment, is jammed with work, similar to before all the product release that I've done, but it would be appreciated. 

UPDATE - Check out Vince's comment below - the criteria was the first 250 were allowed, out of the 600 that applied to be beta testers.  Very fair and reasonable, and I appreciate the response.

My girlfriend sends me this.  Being that I'm a white guy, and she is a 1st generation Indian Sikh here in the Bay Area (and a pretty rebellious Sikh - if you know 1st generation Sikh's, you understand that HAVING a white boy friend is serious rebellion), I can drag her to various "spiritual" events, and she will sometimes, with a humorously cynical eye, comment on (incorrect) western interpretations of Indian culture. 

Also - Dishoom baby!

I have finally gotten around to viewing a few more integral bloggers.  I'll put links to them as well.

CJSmith - one particular post I want to comment on, is this one:

"I realize where I could really be heading with this systematic stuff. The priesthood, theologian, and probably psychologist route (with a possible sub-interest in parapsychology, micro-transformative communities, and the like". 

Assuming I am correct, this post is about, after reading "wilber" type stuff - what do I do then?

I would imagine that a great great many people, who get enthused about Wilber, have similar types of thoughts - I certainly did, around the career aspect.  Certainly, I had the inner dialogue about "priesthood, theologian, and probably psychologist."  I still do...


Pongsathorn Blog - for me, it's great to read about how integralism is affecting people who are actually living in eastern cultures.  Also, his last post was about the tsunami, and he was clearly deeply affected.  Go give him some integral love!

He also took on a HUGE integral practice.  Wow...

What's In Your Mind - Very thoughtful posts - and again, a structured list of integral practice. I think we have the means of creating an easy to use personalized spreadsheet here...

Stuart Davis had a quick post,on WhatEnlightenment  without commentary, today.

I had thought of posting on this, but hadn't gotten around to it - or was pretty reluctant, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that a "bad" spiritual authority/student relationship breakup, resembles nothing more than the worst sort of divorces - with all the deepest emotional layers of betrayal, abuse, accusations, etc, exposed.

You can get a fuller sense of the controversy either at What Enlightenment? or at a couple of excellent forums on the controversy at Integral Naked.  I highly recommend, if you have any interest in this topic, to read through these threads.

There are a couple of thoughts that occur to me, that I haven't seen brought up at the above places. So, I'll make these thoughts explicit here.

1.  Like it or not, this is one of the things that blogs excel at - the takedown (justified or not, make your own decision).  From Dan Rather, to Trent Lott, etc, every sets of eyes, ears, feelings, can now be a potential and enduring broadcaster to any of the teeming millions on the internet who wish to read, and listen. 

These type of controversies, and any teacher abuses (and probably some false claims) will get aired far, wide, and efficiently.

Expect more of this, in the future - like anything, this ability will be used for good and bad.

2.  Changing nature of expertise - where goes the hidden knowledge? 

I'm not sure that there is, or can be an "open source spirituality" (should I register this domain?), but it is important to remember that the essential claim of spiritual knowledge, is that the holder of such knowedge HAS it - and by definition the seeker doesn't. 

This "knowledge gap", or perhaps "being gap", depending - will get more and more separated from the corresponding "power gap" that traditionally is associated with the knowledge gap.  This is, simply, inevitable.  (This may not be a universally good thing.  One aspect of surrendering to universal truth, from a place deep in the gut, is to COMPLETELY SURRENDER.  Without challenge by an other, this is very difficult.)  The point is that the tension between modern power relationships and differently defined spiritual power relationships will be exposed. This exposure will be by the people IN their spiritual communities, who feel this tension in themselves, and their relationship to the power structures in their spiritual community.

4.  The nature of profound awakenings, and a note of caution.

Profound awakenings are, really, overwhelming to the ego.  From my own experience, there is a sense of KNOWING what is so - and you can see it, like seeing the red of an apple in your hand.  It is OBVIOUS. 

If the revelation you are seeing is at odds with "what is expected" in society, so what?  You see the truth.  Your vision is clear.  You are "doing the right thing". 

While I've heard stories of Andrew Cohen over the years, I've never met the man.  But even given the stories on What Enlightenment and other places, I don't get a sense that he isn't being true to his vision.   But how does a person "temper" in some sense, the spiritual visions that fill him, and what those visions ask one to do?

It would be useful to have some type of epistemology for REVEALED TRUTHS, but of course, there isn't.  There are individuals, attempting to put the truths they know and see, into practice.  Heroically, even.  Even if the world doesn't understand, and they hurt other people in the process.

At the end of last year, I blogged on the similarities of "open source" and, for lack of better words, "spiritual source".  Today I come across someone fairly well-known, also making a social connection to open-source.

Kos asks, "What does this have to do with politics? Not much. But as the Propagannon types have shown, dozens (hundreds) of people waging open source journalism can sometimes be more effective than understaffed newsrooms filled with overworked reporters trying to meet deadline

When I'm asked about blogging's legacy, I talk about open source. Open source politics, open source activism, open source journalism -- the aggregation of thousands on behalf of a common cause. Bloggers and their opinions might be mildly interesting, but the ability to pool our efforts on issues that capture the collective imagination is what really gets me excited."

I could ask the same question. "What does open source have to do with integral knowledge and awareness?"

I would answer, for interaction with the world, quite a lot.  Modes of knowledge and best practices can be easily put together if we pool our efforts.  I'm hoping that "Integral University" will have the platform to encourage hundreds if not thousands of participants and contributors.  But if not, I'll say this again, the "Integral Visioning" platform is a promising step in this direction.