I saw this from Kottke, and it is pretty interesting. 

Ostensibly, this particular research was supposed to show whether blogs or "traditional media" was more popular, with the measuring stick being Google mentions. 

But take a look at the results.

Wikipedia is ostensibly the winner here, with wikipedia articles being in the top 4 more often than not.

As this continues, Wikipedia looks to be the default place for articles on any aspect of the world.

I've been reading a lot of "integralians", who have been signing up for the social network Zaadz.  I am reading this with interest, but I haven't signed up yet.  

(It takes me awhile to "join", what can I say?)

From my initial review, I'm not sure it is the best of the up and coming social networks.  I am a fan of the open source Elgg, and also Barnraiser looks to have better features, at the moment.

However -

I was alerted by Ryan's post to this Flickr feature - and it is definitely very cool.  Ideas are voted on by the community, and then graphically displayed.

As expected, the largest graphics - "groups/tribes", "place to gather", "connection to others", "friends", etc.

I'm a busy guy, so I would have to agree that:  meeting in meatspace on a regular basis, with a like-minded community, is a difficult proposition currently.  I have taken - and am taking - steps to remedy this, but attention pulls to other things than building that community.

Here is the link - a very good conversation, that brings up a whole host of questions.

Wilber is, in a very real way, the current modern exemplar of an evolutionary spirituality that Aurobindo in the East, first proposed.  As such, Wilber's Institute and work - like Aurobindo before him - tends towards a comprehensiveness and account of the world as it is in its form, as well as it is in it's formlessness, and towards a progress IN this world, and accounting for the various forms of this world.

Ramana Maharshi is having none of this:

"The state of Atmanishta [being fixed in the Self], devoid of the individual feeling of 'I', is the supreme state. In this state there is no room for thinking of objects, nor for this feeling of individual being. There is no doubt of any kind in this natural state of being-consciousness-bliss. So long as there is the perception of name and form in oneself, God will appear with form, but when the vision of the formless reality is achieved there will be no modifications of seer, seeing and seen. That vision is the nature of consciousness itself, non-dual and undivided. It is limitless, infinite and perfect"

Given the limited apperception - and availability to - the non-dual state - even reading Maharshi's description, elicits a change in perception for me.  A wonder seizes me - that peaceful, joyful peace arises, not attached to any object.

But there is still a WORLD that I live in, that I work in, that I have relationships in.  That impinges upon me.

Say there are 100,000 life lessons to learn, for your time here on earth. Navigating that absolute commitment to the formless- that Maharshi is a stand-in for - is only a small part of the lessons that life can teach you here on earth. 

And then the other 95,000 lessons that life has for you, in terms of giving, receiving, communicating, learning, growing - these lessons are what the "integral", and "skillful means" concepts point to.

Walking that tightrope between the two, is my own personal task.

Cross-posted at Generation Sit

In the last 5 years, Ken Wilber has gone from an independent and successful storyteller of evolutionary spirituality - which he could have kept doing - to founding an organization to further expand on Wilber's vision, and hopefully to create new work and thought based out of that vision.

When I first heard that Wilber was creating an institute, I was glad to hear it.  Wilber had been the pundit expanding on his vision for over a quarter of a century.  It was great that there would be a larger labratory in which to test this vision in the real world, rather than just him telling his inspiring vision, and resting in the commercial book success of that, for the rest of his life (which he could have EASILY done.)

What the institute has been successful in doing in the last two years is - like Ken Wilber - providing a forum for the best storytellers and motivators in different areas of living, but grounded in spirituality- hence the integral.  So different experts, hawking their various products - from enlightenment, to relationship, to energy, to environment - are featured and produced, under the Integral Institute, as well as having their own thing going.

However, with the impending release of Integral University - really the next step - it seems to me that what has been successful for Wilber - mainly sythesizing lots of different points of theory and fact into his overall inspiring vision - is going to run into the next challenge.  Which is that good research is a commitment of good infrastructure, and good organization, and a commitment to NEUTRALITY.

In this sense, the commitment for a research organization is to "neutral" research.  This implies research fights, disagreements, and some generalized unpleasantness, when people disagree.  The role required to LEAD this, is NOT the role of pre-eminent philosopher-king-C.E.O, but more is the role of the University President.  And those roles are pretty separate, and pretty distinct.  I can't see any bodymind being able to encompass both roles, no matter how enlightened.

There have been criticisms about Ken Wilber by various bloggers, and I haven't really weighed in.   But I thought it was time to give my opinion, for what it is worth.

a. Ken Wilber in his work, generalizes, from a profound amount of sources, and he does a pretty good job.  However, there simply is TOO MUCH information to synthesize, for any genius, any polymath.  The days of the polymath are OVER.  (This is put really well by Alan Kazlev in an article titled "Specialized Knowledge".)

Ken Wilber has been able to avoid the challenges to his system, mainly because he is very successful commercially, which pretty much every philosopher is not - and my contention is that what most of Ken Wilber does is synthesizing philosophy,  Success for most theorists  has been with the support of a larger university.

Some of the recent criticism of Ken Wilber has been because of:

1. Errors in particular details - getting his generalizations of a particular subject area wrong.
2. Defensiveness in engaging with critics - for example, claiming that no one has understood his work.

Let's take 1. 

a. I have no doubt that Wilber has made errors - again, no matter how skilled a polymath genius he is, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to be an expert in every field, or even to adequately cover the controversies in one field.  One can only take on as much as one can chew.
b. If you look at the history of philosophers - they have nearly ALWAYS made significant errors, when referencing other domains of knowledge, to either support or elucidate a point of their philosophy.  But the value of Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Heidegger, Habermas, Derrida, their philosophy's value has NEVER rested in whether these references to other domains of knowledge are right and wrong.  In a way, that is an impossible standard.

Let's take 2, defensiveness in engaging with critics:

a.  First off, when you get to the academic fields - guess what? - it is fundamental that you speak for your positions in an absolutely strong way, using every conceivable rhetorical device.  Academic fights get nasty, there is no doubt, as people put their LIVES into their work.  And like the old adage says, "old scientists don't change their views, they just die off".   So again, in this particular realm, there has to be a practical understanding that competing in the rational realm of ideas, is for the most part, a bloody business.
b.  Philosophers complaining that they aren't understood.  Um, yeah!  Again, this happens all the time.  One should read sometime the back and forth between Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida.  Knives were always ready to be displayed - at least until the common enemy of George Bush induced them to put down those knives....
c. Also, you find this a lot in some of the Buddhist debating.  It could get pretty tense there.

Look, again, this is part of the package deal.  Philosophers will defend their ideas to the death, using every rhetorical device imaginable.   The fact that Wilber meditates and has some genuine spiritual realizations, doesn't mean that this personal dynamic that has afflicted every other philsopher won't operate in Wilber's case.

So, what does this mean?  Well, Integral Institute is going to either:

a. Go the product route.  Research will focus around putting out better product, all couched in the terms of integral vision.  In this sense, Integral Institute will continue (or become) the "best" of the "self-improvement" market.  Like Tony Robbins, or Deepak Chopra, use their commercially produced products to derive whatever benefit you can, all operating under the vision of Ken Wilber.  This might be the most practical way to go, as it produces immediate financial benefits.
b. Go the research route.  Ken Wilber will cede the role of operating manager to the "university president", and become like a chairman of the board figure - but of course, still involved!  Then the university president can go ahead and commit to a true "research institute", that also releases products.   But this institute will then allow TRUE research to go forward, with disagreements in the research and theory between each other, and sometimes with the Chairman of the Board.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe any person can be the "leading theorist" of something, and then also operate as the objective judge of that theory.  I at least, would be FAR too bound up!

I've been reading (but not doing exercises yet) from Personal Development for Smart People, or the blog of Stev Pavlina.

I've been looking over the articles, and they are pretty good!

What he is doing, is a big part of what Integral Practice is about, from my perspective (Except for the weird sleeping thing) .  You would simply add an effective spiritual practice and community.

So, what's the problem with Steve, or with the Tony Robbinses of the world? 

The biggest issue of course, is that the "successes" are shouted to the rooftops, while the vast majority of "failures", slink back to their own lives, ashamed to not live up to their goals.  And in the case of Tony Robbins (and others) probably 3 grand lighter in the wallet as well.  (This isn't the case for Steve Pavlina, from what I can tell.  He offers a lot of his perspectives and practice, "open source", as it were, without a 3 grand seminar to attend.  All praises!)

What's the solution to this? 

Well - it will take another post, but I do have an interesting idea and I will post it later.

I came across this article on personal web applications, that gathers in one place all the ways you can keep the data that is important to your life online

Pretty much everything:

Email?  Gmail, Yahoo Mail, etc, etc.

Calendar? Try Kiko - or stay with Yahoo Calendar.

Simple Word documents?  Writely

Spreadsheets?  How about NumSum?

PowerPoint app?  How about S5?

Full office suite?  Well, you have ThinkFree and gOffice. 

Want one place to read all the blogs and news items you are intrested in, through RSS feeds?  Well, you have a million of course.  Google Reader, or Bloglines, or Kinja.

How about a very good personal organizer?  This is where Backpack comes in.

This article also pointed me to Barnraiser.  This looks like a REALLY good social networking application, that includes events, degrees of separation, interests,  and both your own blog, and reading others blogs, upload files, and a personal wiki!

The point here is, that over 90% - maybe more - of what a person does with his life in terms of data and productivity, can now be done online.

You know there has been all this discussion of whether Google, or Yahoo would come out with an office application, and "take on" Microsoft.  (And notice, nowhere did I mention Microsoft in ANY of the above applications, or actually anything installed on your desktop.)  And for myself, I always thought that it would be stupid to challenge Microsoft in terms of Office.  Office is a great product, and always has been.  Notice that Office is still an amazing seller on Apple machines, when there really is no NEED for it, per se.

But the truth is, the online world, and the various web applications are ALREADY taking on Microsoft.  If Google, or Yahoo, don't get in the game, or BUY one of the above better applications  -

they'll be left behind.  So they have to get moving, there really isn't much of a choice for them.

Also, what this means, in terms of Vince's Leapfrogging Dangers article. With a 100 dollar computer, you NOW have full, unfettered, and free access to a full office suite, a scheduler, you can create a network, read all your personalized news, blog, be a writer, form groups and advocate, improve the state of the world with your own wiki, or keep up a wiki of a subject you are interested in -

The future is HERE and the future is NOW.  For anyone on the planet who has an internet connection and a computer.  (Of course, that is easy to say, isn't it?  For billions, having a computer never even enters the consciousness of the person.)

It will be interesting to see what forms these applications take for the future, as they improve.

Now this is really nice.

the World Economic Forum looks like it is going to implement a lot of Web 2.0 technology, for this year's meeting.

Here's the link.

Maybe I can learn a little more about international relations, and world economics. 

I should at least listen to one webcast - these dry autocrats speak to the hidden bureaucrat in me, I suppose...

I was up in Oregon for the x-mas and New Year's holiday - had a great time with family.

(Although it did alternate between sleet-ish rain, sleet, and snow, for the trip).

Spent time, coming back on the five, driving around Mt Shasta, checking out the small town, the various lakes, and throwing snowballs with Amy.

Didn't have a chance to go snowboarding, as I'm still taking it easy because I'm still a bit weak in the shoulder, with a good chance of another dislocation.  I'll start again next Winter '06.

I see that Joe Perez has started the year with a bang, with a five part series, a new launch (and new look) of his blog.  There was also some cross-blog discussion between Joe Perez, Matthew Dallman, and CJ Smith, of whether "integral" is conservative or liberal.  I'll have an opinion on this in the next week, if anyone wants to read it.  (As long as I remember opinions are like @ssholes - everyone's got one, so I don't take my own too seriously!)

As a quick and completely informal poll - did anyone indulge in New Year's resolutions this year?  I haven't yet - I've been busy.  Is it too late yet, or can I still have a ceremony, ala Paul?

What are the rules to New Year's Resolutions?  Do I write them down, stick them up on a mirror, etc? 

I will have some goals for the new year, but in terms of practice, what has been the most successful in terms of placing your resolutions, so you've accomplished them?