I was looking briefly at this article in Time today - The Last Temptation of Al Gore - and then referring back to the Integral Politics in Brief tract I linked to earlier today.

Here's a quote from the Time article:

The Assault on Reason will be hailed and condemned as Gore's return to political combat. But at heart, it is a patient, meticulous examination of how the participatory democracy envisioned by our founders has gone awry—how the American marketplace of ideas has gradually devolved into a home-shopping network of 30-second ads and mall-tested phrases, a huckster's paradise that sells simulated participation to a public that has all but lost the ability to engage. Gore builds his argument from deep drafts of political and social history and trenchant bits of information theory, media criticism, computer science and neurobiology, and reading him is by turns exhausting and exhilarating. One moment he is lecturing you about something you think you know pretty well, and the next moment he's making a connection you had never considered. The associative leaps are dazzling, but what will stoke the Democratic faithful are his successive chapters on the Iraq war, each one strafing the Administration for a different set of misdeeds: exploiting the politics of fear, misusing the politics of faith, misleading the American people, throwing out the checks and balances at the heart of our democracy, undermining the national security and degrading the nation's image in the world. For anyone who stepped into the Oval Office now and tried to end the war, he says, "it would be like grabbing the wheel of a car that's in mid-skid. You're just trying to work the wheel to see what pulls you out of it." But the mess we're in can't be blamed solely on the President or the Vice President or the post-9/11 distortion field that muzzled the media, immobilized Congress and magnified Executive power. "I think this started before 9/11, and I think it's continued long after the penumbra of 9/11 became less dominant," he says. "I think it is part of a larger shift driven by powerful forces"—print giving way to television as our dominant medium for examining ideas, television acting on our brains in ways that scientists are just beginning to unlock. As such, it's not the sort of problem that legislation is going to fix. Gore hopes that the Internet, which is so good at inviting people back into the conversation, will be the key to restoring American democracy. "It's going to take time," he says. "After all, we've been veering off course for a while."

Now first off, I'm going to buy the new Gore book, An assault on reason - but take the paragraph above DESCRIBING Gore's book, and compare it to the shallow analysis given by Wilber above. (And again, I'll have more on this later.)

Which sounds deeper, more true, more resonant, more attendant to the facts as they are happening, not generalizations that fit a theory?

Ken Wilber has been publishing stuff on Integral Politics.  This is recent on the subject.

I've read through page 25. 

I must say, I'm underwhelmed.   Three points -

a.  Ken can't seem to write "lingo" very well.  Very stilted, cardboard, and silly, all of the people, and all of the dialogue between people.
b.  The bringing in of integral theory, seems to be acting as a sort of deus ex machina.  The concepts and explanations are brought in, but aren't actually hooked up with any real time practicalities. 
c.  Left and right are reduced to generalities that are basically content free.  This is then expanded into the typical integral rap - levels and lines, etc.  But nothing really to sink one's teeth into, outside of the integral concepts.


For example, there is exactly ONE reference to power, almost as an aside, when referencing Nietzsche. 

Probably the only reference to any current situation (and I'm skimming now) is this quote:  "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."

Umm...Harvard?  That's the problem?  That caused Karl Rove?


There's quite a lot of undisciplined thinking in this piece, that I've read so far.  Really, you get better analysis at the smarter liberal and conservative blogs, frankly.

I hate to say it, but this type of piece is nothing so much as...silly.  I don't even find much to be outraged about, as the piece is so clearly lacking in any substantive content, it could have been written by a particularly bright, 1st year political science student, exploring integral concepts.

I'm again skimming (this is realtime, I'm reading then writing), and it looks to get a little better towards the end.  A few more distinctions brought in, that are useful.  What do other people think of this piece?

Last year, when all the crazy-ness around Ken Wilber's Wyatt Earpy posts began, I had been looking for the criteria checklist for "cultish" behavior.  I had found one checklist, and blogged on that, but I knew there was one out there that was more comprehensive.  (It's clear that ANY checklist would have some points, as organizations have analogous interests, such as a cause, or getting new members, etc.  Where is gets dangerous is if nearly every item on the checklist test, is "yes". )

Today, quite by accident, I ran into it the checklist.  So I thought it would be interesting to go through each check box, one at a time:

1, The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Well, certainly SOME people feel this way about Ken Wilber.  But in my estimation, not many. Since this a on/off judgment call, I'm going with "no".

2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

This one isn't even close - definite "no".

3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

While meditation is encouraged, as is the ILP, this is still a definite no.

4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Umm...nope. 

5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

There is definitely this going on, because, you know, integral is the highest form of being!  .  Given the terms of this checklist, I'll give this a "yes".  Although, it must be said, most groups consider themselves on a "special mission".

6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

If the "us" is the 2nd tier, versus 1st tier, then yes.  While I think, most of the time, in practice, people aren't evaluated as "1st tier" or "2nd Tier", the philosophy as such, DOES easily lead to an "us" versus "them" mentality.  I'm going to go with "yes", but with caveats.  Still counts as a yes though, for these purposes.

7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

This is true.  While there is a new CEO, and a board, as was seen last year, Ken isn't really accountable to anyone - the power structure rests with him solely.  It must be said, for any founder of a company, this is usually the case.  It is the case for Anthony Robbins, or Chopra, or any single proprietor with employees.  But still, this would be "yes", on the checklist.

8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

No.

9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

You have a little bit of this, in the 1st tier/2nd tier distinction, but not enough for a "yes".  No on the checklist.

10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

No, clearly not.

11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Isn't nearly EVERY group preoccupied with bringing in new members, from the democratic party, to the local rotary club?  Not much evidence, but the checklist would be yes.  Doesn't really prove anything though. "yes".

12. The group is preoccupied with making money.

Again, most groups are preoccupied with making enough money to function.  In terms of an 'extraordinary' desire to make money - ponzi schemes or multi-level marketing, working on your friends - that would be a "no".

13.Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

Nope.


14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

Nope.

15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

No.

So - what's the total?

11 No's
4 Yes's.

Given the fact that at least 2 of the Yes's in question have caveats to them, I think we can clearly, unequivocally, and authoritatively say that, Integral Institute is in no shape, way or form, a cult.  Just an organization, with an enthusiastic mission to spread one philosopher's views.


Now, as an alternative, if this same checklist were to be utilized for Andrew Cohen the Guru - my, my my, how quickly we get more yes's!    Very quickly you find out that yes, Cohen as Guru groups are, organizationally, a cult.