Here is the Google Zeitgeist list, of top searches for 2006.

If you want to see the level of consciousness - the "altitude" of the internet-going public, well, now you can.

Encouragingly, the searches for 2006 seem to be pretty good. - Social networking

First off, there's Bebo - something I didn't even know about, another social networking site, looks like a cross between MySpace and YouTube.

MySpace is second - makes sense, considering their traffic is rivalling Yahoo's now.

World Cup - always a favorite.  Wiki and wikipedia are there.

Another video service, MetaCafe.

Rebelde is interesting - a Mexican TV series?

And then mininova - A bittorrent dream.

Now, on the other side - news - not so much.

First Google News search is Paris Hilton, then Orlando Bloom, and the last of the top ten is Celebrity Big Brother 2006.

No wonder TV news programs seem to become more reality TV every day - that is the type of news people are searching for!

Or maybe not...

A very interesting post at Parzifal's Blog.

I think this has been linked to before, but what is interesting about this, is that this attempt to define what is spiritual intelligence, and what defines that, is backed up with research that has been compiled through various workshops.

The results utilize the framework of the quadrants, as well as the framework of competencies and assessments, and an attempt to separate out levels - or consolidate ALTITUDE.  Very consonant with Integral Spirituality.

I also simply like the SQ distinction as well.  As multiple intelligences go, why not an SQ?  And the assessments which measure it?

here is a link to a good video, on projections of arctic ice disappearance.  Only 2 minutes long.

Some good thoughts.

NOTE:  In case you were unaware, Gary has created the largest grassroots integral community (of course, you knew that, right?)

An interesting report from Pongsathorn on meeting Dzogchen teachers.

Saw Peter post this at Zaadz:

“The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world’s population own barely 1% of global wealth.”

Then I saw this report on World Bank efforts to reduce poverty the last ten years:

Despite an intensified campaign against poverty, World Bank programs have failed to lift incomes in many poor countries over the past decade, leaving tens of millions of people suffering stagnating and even declining living standards, according to a report released Thursday by the bank's autonomous assessment arm.

Clearly, these two articles are related.   There has been a vast effort, on the part of the economic elites, to "grow the wealth" over the last several years.  But doing this, without paying attention to who benefits, simply makes sure the haves get more - in the article:

"For a sustained reduction in poverty over a period of time, it really pays to worry about both growth and distribution," said Vinod Thomas, director-general of the Independent Evaluation Group. "It has been a mistaken notion that you can grow first and worry about the distribution later."

There are also many social issues, that have to worked out internally, before economic use can be of aid.  You have to "pick your spots", so to speak, and take an integral, holistic, and pragmatic approach - paying attention not only to the economic picture, but the levels of consciousness and power distrubution, clan rivalries, etc - in a country.

I saw this from C4Chaos -

Very cool functionality at Zaadz.  You can choose the song, and using "open" functionality, this uses another application - Project Playlist

Although, I have to say, some of C4's music selections are seriously sappy!!     Life By the Drop though - that is cool.

(But hey, anyone who sees my IPod would say the same. We all have those sappy songs that "get" us). 

Still, a small poke at C4 - why isn't Changes on there?  That would be perfect for this playlist!

This weekend, the effects of Typhoon Durian is assumed to have killed 1000 people in the Phillipines.

These type of tragedies, are simply pointless, given that smart infrastructure can mitigate the damage and death that comes from these type of natural disasters.

Take a look at this list of severe European windstorms.  Notice, as time progresses, the lesser number of deaths.  This is mainly due to stronger infrastructure, buildings, tolerance testing in architecture, canals for decent runoff, etc.

I simply cannot comprehend the type of value system that spends 3 billion on a destroyer, as well as other military boondoggles, when the opportunity exists to sow UNIVERSAL good will, by utilizing these funds for helping nations out with good infrastructure.

Perhaps that is naive - but I do believe that this creates both:

a. Goodwill
b. Economic partners that are more interested in productive commerce, than being a "bad" neighbor.

NOTE:  This of course doesn't mean that ALL the effects of natural disasters can be mitigated.  But some can. 

Of course, we see this same type of blindness with global warming - and the exact same poorer countries will suffer the worst effects.

I saw this article about Calling Bullshit, over at the Watchdog blog - it is an article mainly about the vapidness of our current press, especially as it comes to being stenographers for the White House, rather than skeptical inquirers.

I will fess up - I am built in a skeptical way - if I perceive something that strikes me as B.S., not truthful, I immediately am psychically galvanized.  "What is going on?"  "Why did they say that?", or even better "WTF?"

This particular voice - this identity - is a particularly strong identity in the awareness field comprising myself.

Now, I do have SOME space from this voice.  Especially when you sit in meditation, and as the chattering mind runs down, runs out of places to hide, I get treated to a spectacle of the "bullshit detector mind", inside of me, and seeing in a sense, just how shallow that particular voice can be.

The problem is - this voice is very very useful, to me, and very, very valuable.  That ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, to make determinations about people, positive and negative, to be truthful and blunt with oneself - it really is quite a good survival mechanism in the world.  Even in the job situation, to see a path through to a clean product.

As such, this voice can be very hard to disidentify with, as my self-identity - to the degree that I a identified with anything, has a big degree of identification with this voice.

Now, here's my sweeping statement - BLOGGERS especially, INCLUDING integral bloggers, have that voice in spades - it's not just me!! 

And I think there is some proof to this fact, given all the integral bloggers activity regarding Ken's Wyatt Earp post.  (yes, this means YOU reading this!)  Especially since a lot of integral thinking has to do with SYNTHESIS, as analysis.  When you engage in synthesis anlysis, you engage the limitations of one train of thought - focusing on the contradictions (and b.s.) of that particular train of thought for - hopefully - a higher view.

And the thing is, there are problems with this voice - there is bullshit in the bullshit detector, if you don't mind my language.  A few spring to mind -

a. Not all B.S. is equal.  To give an example, from the political world - what type of b.s. is more damaging - lying about a sexual encounter in the White House, or lying to the american public to get people into a war?  (I'm not providing answers to this, just laying out the scenario.) 
b. You can "fool" the b.s. meter, by appealing to the frame (this is a lie/self-contradiction) by setting up fake b.s. - we see this a lot in the current political market via smearing of opponents, dishonestly, or trumping up the charges, or blowing out of proportion an inconsistency in behavoir as a HUGE character issue.
c. The b.s. meter can be misapplied - for example, in one sense, b.s. and ethics are related.

Example:  Someone isn't "in integrity" between their stated beliefs and their actions - but recognized that , is not the same as saying that person is unethical.  So a sense of  "moral outrage", which is found when someone else transgresses against a moral value of another (moral turpitude!) - is often conflated with a straight out b.s. meter.  Thus people will accuse each other of this or that, or people will say "you are coming from an amber place - improve your colors - get your a$$ into violet!".

Or some such.

So, what does this have to do with integral, or with spirituality?

Well, I'm just exploring ideas right now (and by the way, saying "I'm just exploring, while true, is a good defense against the b.s. meter, because you aren't, you know, saying something authoritatively!), but here goes.

I'd like to see what an "integral b.s. meter" would look like.  Or, without the integral language, how a b.s. meter "should" work, from a higher consciousness place.  As I can't see us integral bloggers getting less attached to our b.s. calling (although it would probably be a good personal growth experiment, if I, for say three months, said nothing that was "critical", or pointing out the limitations of a particular point of view or action.  But given my job, that is nearly impossible.)

a.  Focusing on "the facts maam".  My main issue with the Wilber  Earpy posts, was the obvious misrepresentation of another's views.  While there were others who had some moral problems with the language, or the harshness, that didn't seem to come from a higher perspective, if you deem those as "subjective", then the obviousness of the misrepresentation of Frank Visser's actual post, was still problematic.

b.  Developing a "ranking scale" of b.s.  I think this would take awhile, but - it might be worth doing.  Does one episode of anger, suddenly discount 10 years of being a saint otherwise?  Can that type of judgment be made.  This is also important, in the spiritual community, as - should spiritual leaders have human foibles?  Should they always be exemplars of human behavior?  Are they allowed to laugh at bad jokes? Can they fart in public?     (I figure three bad episodes do disqualify a particular teacher.  Maybe even two - sorta like the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".)   Does repeated horrible integral analysis that misrepresents both facts, and then also lies by omission, discredit that analysis?  I could say this about a couple of integral bloggers out there - and back it up, based on MANY different instances of their writing - but I don't, for three reasons. 

1. In the spirit of comity (brotherly love!)
2. because hey, my perspective is limited, and
3. There are few enough of us, that it doesn't make sense to argue about angels on the head of a pin, right?

Lastly, when we engage our b.s. detector, it is important, from a spiritual perspective to remember "You are not that".   And - for me at least - distinguishing between that "outraged reaction" or "that's B.S!" and the fundament of awareness that is my true nature - that is important as well.   If my energy is in the b.s. detector, rather than enlightened awareness, then that is a problem. 

So, I ask the question - how would an "enlightened" or "integral" b.s. detector work?  I would REALLY appreciate some thoughtful responses to this post.

Thanks!