So I biked into work today.  At around 8 AM, went into the gym to shower, prepare for work, and noticed that on the cable news channels, reporting about Paris Hilton.

And just now, 3 hours later, I go into a corner store to get a snack - I look up at the TV, and what is being reported on?

Paris Hilton.

3 hours later.

(Oh, by the way, Paris Hilton is out of jail, in case you haven't heard.  I didn't know she was in jail, but apparently she was, and now she is out.)

Which brings up, of course, the clear emptiness of current news reporting.  Entertainment, rather than worthwhile news. What entertains, rather than what informs.

It would be interesting to see an integral analysis of this.  The financial and economic analysis is straightforward - the news companies are focused on ratings, there is a ratings bump from entertainment related news, so the editors at the news channels allow 24/7 insipid coverage, dominated by corporate interests on substantial issues, and fluff the rest of the time.  Whatever gets the ratings up, within reason.

The real question then, is where straight economic analysis is placed within the integral context? 

Economic analysis focuses, interestingly enough, focuses on most everything BUT the I-dimension.   Mainly this type of analysis is IT and ITS focused, with a bit of WE analysis thrown in, for cultural dimensions. 

My one sentence analysis of the shallowness of news is mainly an "externalist" rendering of the situation, with rational actors in the news divisions acting in a behavioristic fashion, in pursuit of those ratings bumps.  With the product then produced by that process being shallow tripe.

It would be great to see a bit more of this in integral-land, with a focus on the reciprocity between the individual and cultural factors, that move in interdependence with the IT economic "hard" factors (actual resources),  and ITS legal and economic structures that are in place.

It seems to me that Wilber talks about the external factors, only to abandon them in "inner" cultural and personal factors, when push comes to shove.

"The single greatest problem was stated this way.  When green attacks orange, amber wins.  And believe me, amber is winning, just ask Karl Rove.  Despite a democratic victory here or there, the ranks of voters have downshifted towards amber, unmistakably and strongly.  All of this thanks to the likes of green Harvard, which has finally succeeded in deconstructing it's own deconstructionists"

I would say that the hollowing out of news reporting, does downshift power towards amber.  The prizing of vapid fame over important issues means, that in the main news world, important information doesn't get reported until it bites "the people" in the rear-end.  Too late to do anything about it.

But how is that "green attacking orange?"  The externalist factors I describe above - the search for ratings - account for the dumbing down of the news.    That isn't green, correct?

This is why Wilber's analysis fails so badly - so incredibly, awfully badly - on this point.   "Green" because a magic talisman of sorts, the boogieman, to not actually engage what is happening in the "real world".

If true, this is actually good news.

The static-character research is typically based on a definition of personality comprising five features, called the five-factor model, including openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

While these factors are important to a person's character, Dweck argues they aren't the definitive word, and results generated from the model could be missing subtle, yet critical, aspects of personality. She will present her research this week at an annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science in Washington, D.C.

"My point is that there's a really big in-between area that they don't talk about, and these are the crucial beliefs that people develop as they grow and learn," Dweck told LiveScience in a telephone interview.

From the always must-read Integral Options.  Bill is simply a monster (in a good way), both physically and in terms of his prodigious blog output, as well as his constantly valuable speedlinking.

The rest of us simply are not worthy.  But I'm cool with that.

From Graham.  I need to try something like this. 

Here is the next installment on Pavlina's Self-Discipline series.  (To note again, any integral practice is predicated on, at a minimum, two things - an opening to spiritual truth, and the discipline to practice to be fully functional in the world.  Self-Discipline is one key to this.)

This particular segment on will, I find very useful.   A quote:

Willpower provides an intensely powerful yet temporary boost. Think of it as a one-shot thruster. It burns out quickly, but if directed intelligently, it can provide the burst you need to overcome inertia and create momentum.

This is a better definition, and more realistic, than either of the two extremes understandings - use willpower to go through everything in life, or, willpower doesn't really exist, as all is a function of environmental and social constraints.

And the advice on how to use willpower to SMARTLY change those environmental and social constraints is good as well:

Here’s how to tackle that same goal with the proper application of willpower. You accept that you can only apply a short burst of willpower… maybe a few days at best. After that it’s gone. So you’d better use that willpower to alter the territory around you in such a way that maintaining momentum won’t be as hard as building it in the first place. You need to use your willpower to establish a beachhead on the shores of your goal.

So you sit down and make a plan. This doesn’t require much energy, and you can spread the work out over many days.

You identify all the various targets you’ll need to strike if you want to have a chance of success. First, all the junk food needs to leave your kitchen, including anything you have a tendency to overeat, and you need to replace it with foods that will help you lose weight, like fruits and veggies. Secondly, you know you’ll be tempted to get fast food if you come home hungry and don’t have anything ready to eat, so you decide to pre-cook a week’s worth of food in advance each weekend. That way you always have something in the refrigerator. You set aside a block of several hours each weekend to buy groceries and cook all your food for the week. Plus you get a decent cookbook of healthy recipes. You learn about Weight Watchers, and find out where the closest one is to you, so you can go to the first meeting and sign-up. Setup a weight chart and post it on your bathroom wall. Get a decent scale that can measure weight and body fat %. Make a list of sample meals (5 breakfasts, 5 lunches, and 5 dinners), and post it on your refrigerator. And so on…. At this point all of this goes into the written plan.

Then you execute — hard and fast.

That particular set of advice is welcomingly practical, recognizing both the benefits and the limits of willpower, and how to use the benefits of willpower to, as much as possible, change the environment to a successful one.  

This is one reason why, if you go on retreats of various kinds (exercise, meditation, etc), it simply becomes so much easier to "get in the groove", as the environment and expectations are setup for you to practice, or act, in certain ways.

The thing that isn't touched on, of course, and I've mentioned this before, is the concept of sub-personalities, or fractures of will.  If you really really want to keep eating that sugar, then guess what?  You will.  Your desires are at cross-purposes.  Addictions, or psychological issues (not "severe issues, just normal run-of-the-mill small self-sabatoge), will have you working at cross-purposes.

My own sense is, in terms of "self-initiated growth", working alone to change, without a support structure, that the sub-personalities, lower desires, etc, can act as a major drag for at least 50-70% of the population.

So, while still very good practical advice, and one of the smartest tactical implementations for utilizing will I've read, this particular section on willpower, would end up, if being followed alone, by 50-70% of the population, end up failing.

Here is the link.

Some interesting parts:

The way to build self-discipline is analogous to using progressive weight training to build muscle. This means lifting weights that are close to your limit. Note that when you weight train, you lift weights that are within your ability to lift. You push your muscles until they fail, and then you rest.

Comment:  This seems to be true for some things, but not others.  Example:  I can be disciplined for meditation and exercise, but not, say, IT study.

It’s a mistake to try to push yourself too hard when trying to build self-discipline. If you try to transform your entire life overnight by setting dozens of new goals for yourself and expecting yourself to follow through consistency starting the very next day, you’re almost certain to fail. This is like a person going to the gym for the first time ever and packing 300 pounds on the bench press. You will only look silly.

Again, I'm not sure how true this is.  If I set a goal of 30 minutes meditation, and 30 minutes exercise, I will do those goals, but if I set a goal of 10 minutes guitar playing (which I love) or 10 minutes IT study (which is okay, interesting), that I don't do.

So something else is going on, besides building the "self-discipline" muscle.

Similarly, if you’re very undisciplined right now, you can still use what little discipline you have to build more. The more disciplined you become, the easier life gets. Challenges that were once impossible for you will eventually seem like child’s play. As you get stronger, the same weights will seem lighter and lighter.

Perhaps you try to work a solid 8-hour day without succumbing to distractions, and you can only do it once. The next day you fail utterly. That’s OK. You did one rep of 8 hours. Two is too much for you. So cut back a bit. What duration would allow you to successfully do 5 reps (i.e. a whole week)? Could you work with concentration for one hour a day, five days in a row? If you can’t do that, cut back to 30 minutes or whatever you can do. If you succeed (or if you feel that would be too easy), then increase the challenge (i.e. the resistance).

That example simply isn't my reality.  My own experience is, you truly need at least 30 days, maybe 90, for a new practice to become habitual.  (This is also something that Pavlina says, which is true, in my experience.)

But what will happen with a "new" practice, practiced independently, is that I'll keep it up for a few days, then fall off the wagon, then sporadically continue, until I give up again. (Or come back to that practice a couple of weeks later.)

So, in my case at least (and I'm being honest here about my lack of self-discipline) it seems to me that there are two options, for those who obviously never learned true self-discipline, but simply learned enough to "get by". 

a.  Immersion:  Especially for any new trait, the "AA" route is useful.  Full immersion, and daily support, for the new trait you are attempting to instill - until it becomes a habit.
b. Immersion again - in a program to learn "self-discipline" as a trait, in and of itself, separate from any actual practice.
c.  Bill mentioned this once - work with one's psychology, or inner voices, to understand what inside of one's psychology is indulging in self-sabatoge of growth. 

I would criticize Stve Pavlina, actually, from presenting a "system", or a guide of how-to's, that in a lot of ways, "assumes the close".  Meaning, assumes the self-discipline already exists, with which to "improve".
The A to B straight line of self-improvement that Pavlina endorses, while sounding wonderful, glosses over the challenges to the "normal" person.  As such, is of very limited use, to effectively creating change.

True to it's groundbreaking nature, WorldChanging has published an end-of-the-year "What's Next", for 32 of their contributors.  True to form, the articles tend towards the informative, without being overly long.

While there is some repetition - lots of "this will be the year", I definitely got a lot of reading this articles. 

This one from Gil Friend:

The key words I'm watching for 2007: generative feedback. Performance feedback that doesn't just track behavior; it drives it.


I think this also tracks with any "spiritual science", and tracks with integral feedback.

Also, from one of the articles, found the site Instructables - collaborative web 2.0 site for How-To.  Looks interesting!

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?

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.

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.

Tricks and tips to learn faster and longer, at Online Education Database.

I always need to remember the breakfast one, myself...

A pretty interesting video here - this is actually IONS contributing to the program that COTS does:

A good post from Integral Awakening: 

Integral Criticism:  The Solution Is Easy

"Response through authentic, unbiased, research".
 
The problem - this type of research takes time, from what is already a very busy life - and then, there is little compensation, outside of a "job well done".

So - despite the Integral Wiki, despite the great work being done at the P2P Foundation, despite the various integral groups - the integral research project seems to stay the province of the charismatic leaders, the "try this method" people, and the ruminations of the  philosophically-oriented.

I'm thinking about ways to encourage a greater, more practical participation - what are others thoughts?

Who has a lot of time to add to either the Integral Wiki, or integral stuff to the main wiki?  Who has time to participate in a online research project.

Now, that would be pretty easy to create.  Say 40 people in the world - 50, maybe - decide to do the 1 Minute modules every day, for 90 days. detailing the experience, say, to Google Spreadsheets (shared).  During, and after, the spreadsheets can be downloaded, put into either Access, or another database, and statistical analysis run.

That is how EASY it would be, for people to participate.  But even then, who has the time?

There needs to be some carrot, I think, for this stuff.  Peer to peer Foundation began discussing various ways to incentivize the wisdom of the crowds.

I wonder if this could be done with this type of integral research? 

One idea would be, perhaps, some type of community blog, for the research participants, that would publish interesting content, at the same time detailing some of the results.  Then, you add Google Ads, and others, to the site.

Micropayments for participation would probably run in the cents, to the tens of dollars - but there is at least a measurable carrot, no matter how small. 

Of course, you would need to attract enough of an audience to have the site pay for itself - and on top of that have extra!  Which is hard to do!

On the other hand, you can now get a SCOOP community site, for less than 20/month.  That would be easy to raise (or simply pay for) and any extra, again, wouldn't be so much for "making" money, just to have a measurable carrot.

At any rate, it's a good question - participatory integral research projects, that use the web, and pay for themselves. 

Any ideas?

Joe does a masterful job, in the following posts, fleshing out with great descriptions, viewpoints of development, that align with the integral model.

Infrared and Magenta Stations

Red and Amber Stations

Orange and Yellow Stations

Green and Teal Stations

Update: 

Violet and Ultraviolet Stations

I recommend reading these.

One thing about developmental theory, studies, and I alluded to it in my last post (and Vince added a thoughtful comment as well), is that I'm not sure anyone is AT any particular station.  I more think that a person passes through - on a daily basis, states that reflect the stations.  As such, a particular person is infrared, magenta, red, amber, orange, yellow, green teal, depending on what is active in the person's consciousness, at that moment.

A line from Joe:  Formation of ability to trust others; the ability to embrace life as fundamentally worth living

This element of trust/no trust, of LIFE, is carried through, as an adult.  In times of tiredness, it is easy to revert to a state of "no-trust", even though most of the time one's attitude is one of trust.


And this can be wildly affected by what the surrounding environment is.   That basic primeval state can be re-engaged by life and death issues, as well as say, being put in prison indefinitely (see previous post.)

In this sense, I don't know how useful it is to label a PERSON - you can attempt to label a view, or a certain behavior set.  For example, aversion to discipline may be labeled that a "negative red", has been activated in a person. And for an honest self-evaluation, it's good to attempt to see what is motivating you.  (Don't tread on me!)  But in another situation, that same person could be incredibly disciplined.  

At the same time, if that "Don't treat on me", appears as a fixated pattern, often enough, in that person, then we can say - yes, that person is spending a lot of time in a fixated negative red pattern.  Negative self-esteem, that periodically attempts to force that esteem from others, might be an example.

This is the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri:

This is not a case of someone being detained on a battlefield or even overseas, nor is it the case of someone who entered the country illegally. He was in the U.S. legally and was detained while sitting at home. And just as he was about to start his criminal trial, the President essentially cancelled the trial and ordered him detained indefinitely and incommunicado

Regarding legal issues, this is some of the impact of the Unlimited Detention and Torture Act (also known as the Military Commissions Act). 

A complete betrayal of the legal underpinnings of the Constitution.  A complete betrayal of any type of ethical system.

It looks like one of the first things Democrats will do, is attempt to address this law, removing or altering some of the more egregious elements.

Let's all pray for success in this.

This post from P2P is certainly very true.

No one can be "shut up", in the new era, at least not effectively.  Stories get out.  And the example of Andrew Cohen is a good one, detailing What Is Enlightenment's primary role in getting the world out at A.C.'s abuses.

It's also incredibly humorous, to see Andrew Cohen attempt to "embrace" blogs.   Here is a blog of his on Integrity.

He declares his allegiance to "authenticity, transparency, and integrity", pretty early on, using this new blogform.

Why is that humorous? 

Well, because if you attempt to leave a comment - which I did - it doesn't post, but gets caught, and "reviewed".   The reasons why  a comment wouldn't get posted are many - you can read the subtext - the comment I left was mildly oppositional, slightly mocking,  certainly nothing that supposedly wouldn't get by the filter. 

But it wasn't posted, of course. 

So much for transparency!  I've heard from others, and they have had the same experience.
As well, the post is full of abstractions, strawmen, and defensiveness, when speaking about his "controversial path". 

Also, he mentions why he hasn't spoken of his detractors before:

The motives of my detractors appeared so transparent that I thought they would be obvious to others, and I naively concluded that there was no point in responding. Besides, it just felt beneath my dignity to do so. I was wrong. I have now, obviously belatedly, come to understand that my lack of response is being considered by some as an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, or even worse, as a lack of integrity in itself.

This chilled me, especially, when considering the following story from What Enlightenment blog, about a british 70 year old female follower:

The following day, on Sunday 12 December 1999, her phone rang once more and it was again Steve Brett on the other end of the line. Clearly dissatisfied that in the previous phone call Caroline had not "cracked" under his pressure and "admitted her sin," Steve Brett went on to deliver a renewed but far more devastating attack on Caroline. Caroline said later that the conversation lasted for about forty five minutes and that during it Brett repeatedly insulted her with a ferocity that left her completely traumatized. Caroline said that she had to keep the phone handset away from her ear on many occasions as Brett was literally shouting at her from the other side. She was told that she was going to “die a miserable old woman” and how awful it was on her part that she had dared to leave the venue without waiting to see Cohen. Without any consideration whatsoever for her physical and spiritual frailty, Brett again and again furiously scolded Caroline for her apparent egotistical and independent ways that completely infuriated her teacher. Caroline was told that, instead of surrendering her soul to Andrew Cohen now that she was coming close to dying, she was still holding on to her small life and her ego and would die as such. Caroline also spoke about her intuitive feeling that Cohen was in the room with Brett, listening to the latter delivering his attack.

 Caroline died 11 days after this conversation with Brett - (and the suppositions is, (no proof, I will say) that this was at Cohen's direction), and the case is made that it was mainly due to the severe effect of the "talking to".  I'm sure that isn't all, as bodies go when they go, especially 79 year old bodies - but wow, what a great last gift to a dying woman, huh?

Whether the story is true or not - the story certainly doesn't seem something "beneath Andrew's dignity", to speak about, or clear up.  It seems exactly opposite that.

And, of course, that is just ONE story, out of many, from many, MANY different sources.

So, let's continue to use these peer-to-peer tools to expose the corruption, in the communities we belong to.   Just remember, it's like weed-whacking.  Something you have to do again and again.

I clearly haven't been posting a lot here - mainly because I've been pretty busy.

But also, this particular blog has focused on the "basics", of integralism (when not veering to tech stuff and philosophy!)

For various dimensions, it is now pretty clear what the basic practices are.

Physical - I've blogged before - but 2 to 3 times a week, cardio, stretching, and weighlifting for exercise.

For diet - barring special circumstances - less carbs, and balanced eating.

Meditation - while there is a lot around the map here, the basic practices involved for integral involve:

Basic Zen/Vipassana sitting
BigMind/Advaita training
Compassion/Heart work


Now, of course, I'm missing a lot of the I-Thou meditations.  Perhaps I could blog them.

In terms of professional, career - one of the best books out there for this is Pathfinder, and What Color Is Your Parachute?

Both are passionate and practical, and give a very good sense of what are the gifts one has to GIVE, in terms of skills, abilities, and desires.

Psychological/interpersonal- while there are a lot of books out there, self-assessment is fairly easy to use, and I have also used this site to point to inexpensive therapeutic options.  And then there is the Shadow Work of the 1-2-3, as well as Byron Katie's work.  I could write more about relationship as well, but it is so easy for this to become narcissistic, in my opinion.

Now - community - this is probably one of the biggest lacks that I personally have, or have not written a lot about, and I've been attempting to address this through the Ken Wilber MeetUp, and organizing the San Francisco ILP Group. 

And then, when you do all the above, do you have time for rest, play, and creativity? Where is the balance?

I still believe there are things that are important for an "integral practitioner" to deal with - deeper delving into the interpersonal, dealing with MOTIVATION and destructive subpersonalities (just because all the practices are out there, doesn't mean you are doing them!), and also re-introducing some concepts into the integral community with ethics - such as "duty", "community commitment" etc.  A community is defined by the individuals that "take on" the duties of that community, and it is duty and volunteerism that is the glue of community.  Which conflicts a bit with "my/your integral growth".  And you want to keep away from any cultism, as such.

At any rate, opening up for questions - what integrally, needs to be worked on?  My integral growth, rather than "our" integral growth?