I bought the ILP Kit.

Finally.

Should be here in a few days. 

What's interesting is some of the divisions in the Kit, from what I hear. 

1 minute, 10 minute, and 35 minute versions for the 3 Body workout, for example.

Also, a lot of activity around ILP groups, in the Bay area and elsewhere.  I will document this here in future posts, never fear...

Jeff was kind enough to leave a comment last week,  and in passing, he reminded me of something I was going to post on. 

Namely, he says this: "Which would be more or less a rejection of my work as an integrally-informed coach/consultant. Which would be more or less a rejection of my purpose. And me.)"

I completely relate to this, and I wonder who else does so?

My observation is that sensitive, intelligent guys, if they "grok" Ken Wilber - there's a pretty natural tendency to say "My life purpose is to be THAT type of coach/counselor, and help people get their lives together!"

Of course, maybe I am projecting.

But this is a common thing in literature, inspirational literature ABOUT the WORLD and IDEALS, that also motivates -

People who read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, everyone starts to see themselves as:

"The hero, Howard Roark, is Rand's ideal, a noble soul par excellence, an architect who is firmly and serenely devoted to his own ideals and believes that no man should copy the style of another in any field, especially architecture. All the other characters in the novel demand that he renounce his values, but Roark maintains his integrity. Unlike traditional heroes who launch into long and passionate monologues about their integrity and the unfairness of the world; Roark, in contrast, does it with a disdainful, almost contemptuous taciturnity and laconicism."

Same thing with Herman Hesse - the idealist Siddartha becomes a role model of emulation.

Talking to a lot of people about Wilber - I think there could be a lot of the same dynamic going on.  The idealized version of wanting to help, of thinking of integral as the "life passion", etc. 

I think it is also a TRUE inspiration - it certainly is true for me - but I also wanted to point out that there is a certain literary device being employed, that flows from Wilber's work, that all of us feel, when reading it - and that same type of literary device works the same way (but with different CONTENT) for other writers.

I don't know if this was a concious decision on Ken's part or not, but for me, it's an interesting phenomenon.

In case you haven't been tracking this, and you are interested in politics, and have some time (three prerequisites!), make sure to check out "Who owns God?" at Integral Options Cafe.

Who Owns God? Part 1
Who Owns God? Part 2
Who Owns God? Part 3

It's actually politics through the realm of Spiral Dynamics, but worth reading in any case. 

What is valuable is the insight that the "God" that people believe in is related to their own level of growth, and that this has been mapped, via (hopefully) large scale and coherent statistical analyses.

I'm still skeptical (or perhaps confused) of this Tier 1- Tier 2 understanding.

Tier 1 is considered everyting the "memes" Green and below.  Tier 2 is yellow and above.

To me, there still seems a confusion between a substantive and authentic "level of consciousness",be it green, orange, yellow - with the whole aspect of "meme", which really is a strictly cognitive development.

A level of conciousness is deeper than a cognition, deeper than a meme, so it looks like a conflation between a particular "meme" or world-view, with a level of consciousness.

It is an interesting read.

(I collect these stories, so take that for what it is worth!)