Integral Practice

Breaking the Radio Silence - Integral Conference in the Bay Area

ebuddha — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:52:00 -0700

Taking some time from silence, to post about the JFK Conference in Integral Theory. In the Bay Area, so I have no excuse!

I fully hope and expect to meet lots of my online pals, in person.

Thanks to Bill for the heads-up.

One more idle comment on Wilber's Harvard generalization

ebuddha — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:47:00 -0700

Over the last week, I've been dealing with media shallowness, but one comment I found interesting on the Rorty article:

It's all fine and good to be a skeptic in the Rortian vein or Stanley Fish-style and argue that metaphysics and foundationalism are bunk and that democracy doesn't need any sort of philosophical grounding.

The problem is that there is trickle-down of ideas: not directly from academia to the average citizen, but from philosophers to the media elite, who are mostly college-educated and whose views of reality and discourse are a kind of cartoon version of the dominant trends in academic thought.

You wonder then where the MSM gets this idea that empiricism doesn't matter, that reality is just a construct, that public life is nothing but a power-struggle in which the right thing to do is find out what the daddy-party wants, and just obey that?

Look no further than Rorty, Fish, and the two-bit latter-day deconstructionists.

Ideas have consequences, and so does the weak-tea thesis that ideas themselves are inconsequential. Without a strong commitment to truth, empiricism, and foundationalism in ideas, all you have left is tribalism on right, and triangulation on the left.

I've been making fun of the following Wilber 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"

I think I may have to take back my fun-making. That quote above - coming from a completely different place than Wilber - essentially says the same thing.

Something to think about.

A thought on Richard Rorty, Ken Wilber - different conclusions, using similar methods?

ebuddha — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:35:00 -0700

I came across this artice on Richard Rorty today, over at the Los Angeles Times.

Richard Rorty was, in many ways, the american postmodern. He rejects epistemology early on, and situated "truth" as, in his famous expression - ""Truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with saying."

You can't get more postmodern than that.

As the article points out though, he would review other philosophers works, and, to put it mildly, "misinterpret" what they have said:

These positions irritated many people. But what absolutely killed philosophy professors was Rorty's interpretation of the great figures of the Western tradition. The average philosophy professor may spend a decade or a career trying to elucidate the works of Martin Heidegger or W.V.O. Quine. Rorty lined up such figures in support of his own positions in a fundamentally careless way. He quoted them out of context and ignored everything he couldn't use.

This truly enraged people. The Dewey scholars hated him, as did the Wittgenstein scholars, the Davidson scholars, the Nietzsche scholars, the Derrida scholars and so on. Every one of them thought they could prove that Rorty was wrong about their particular boy, and that he'd have to listen and take back all the things he had said. In this, they didn't understand him at all.

Another example"

As Rorty spoke, Gadamer just shook his big, eminent, bereted head. When it was over, Gadamer said, in German-accented English: "But Dick, you've got me all wrong." Rorty gave the grin and the shrug and said: "Yes, Hans. But that's what you should have said."

Wilber, of course, is coming from a different worldview. In his case, making room for transcendent truths, without negating the current truths of science and modernity. A version of perennialism, although one based on perceptual spaces.

Also interesting then, that so many Wilber scholars not associate with Wilber, share some of the concerns of misrepresentation of other scholars, that drove people crazy about Rorty.

Integral Institute's Failure to Provide Cogent Analysis

ebuddha — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:45:00 -0700

Is now clearly on display. More silly Paris Hilton obsessions.

From Al Gore's book:

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I'm not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hopes it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half the American people still believes that Saddam was connected to the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just unfortunate excess --- an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsession that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Late in the summer of 2006, American news coverage was saturated with the bizarre false confession of a man who claimed to have been present at the death of JonBenet Ramsey --- the six-year-old beauty queen whose unsolved murder eleven years before was responsible for another long-running obsession. A few months prior to John Mark Karr's arrest in Bangkok, the disappearance of a high school senior in Aruba and the intensive search for her body and her presumed murderer consumed thousands of hours of television coverage. Both cases remain unsolved as of this writing, and neither had any appreciable impact on the fate of the Republic.

Like JonBenet Ramsey, O.J. has recently been back at the center of another fit of obsessive-compulsive news, when his hypothetical confession wasn't published and his interviews on television wasn't aired. This particular explosion of "news" was truncated only when a former television sitcom star used racist insults in a night club. And before that we focus on the "Runaway Bride" in Georgia. And before that there was the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy. And of course we can't forget Britney and KFed, and Lindsay and Paris and Nicole, Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch and married Katie Holmes, who gave birth to Suri. And Russell Crowe apparently threw a phone at a hotel concierge.

In early 2007, the wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, embalming, and funeral plans and the legal wrangling over the paternity and custody of her child and disposition of her estate, served as yet another particularly bizarre example of the new priorities in America's news coverage.

And while American television watchers were collectively devoting a hundred million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness.

But of course, Al Gore is somehow a green post-modernist, empowering Karl Rove,being a Harvard grad, and all that.

Now clearly, I'm making fun. I understand KW has a lot on his plate - he isn't an expert in a lot of fields.

But his Integral Politics is clearly deeply deficient - so are there other integal analyses that are worthwhile, of the media situation? The banality and obsessiveness of the 24/7 news networks, really isn't a left/right issue - it comes in for mutual condemnation.

But what is the integral analysis?

Empty News Reporting - Integral Analysis?

ebuddha — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:32:00 -0700

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".

To the Integral Color-Coders - What Color Is Al Gore?

ebuddha — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:40:00 -0700

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?

Integral Politics: A Summary of Its Essential Ingredients

ebuddha — Mon, 21 May 2007 10:18:00 -0700

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?

Update on Integral Institute as a "cult", or cult-like

ebuddha — Wed, 09 May 2007 17:27:00 -0700

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.

Joe Perez - Writing In a New Way

ebuddha — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:56:00 -0800

If you haven't see what Joe is doing recently, make sure to go over and have a look.

It's very "integral-meta", but also a new way at looking at integral writing, and what the writing is "about". Taking a perspective on your perspectives, and words, and such, and labeling various writing - whether contemplation, statements about moral views, etc - with a color code.

One of the reasons I personally like this, is because it really breaks up the view that a person is OF a certain color, in the simplistic Spiral Dynamics view. This becomes very obvious in Joe's painstaking analysis and color-coding of the State of the Union address by President George Bush.

Within one speech - one speech! - you find nearly all the different values as reflected in the spiral dynamic specrum, while at the same time, getting a visual take of the largest "percentage" of where the speech is coming from.

For myself, it's quite useful, like seeing a spreadsheet chart graphed or grouped, on miscellaneous data, for the first time. So much better than a simplistic take, showing that Bush "differentiates across the spectrum of values, while remaining pretty firmly centered in conformity values.

I highly recommend to go take a look at the work Joe has done, in advancing out of a simple view of Spiral Dynamics.

Fresh Cohen Fodder

ebuddha — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:21:00 -0800

Since I have a comment by a reader, in a previous post, I will go ahead and point to a new article up at What Enlightenment, by a major contributor (millions of dollars) to Andrew Cohen's work.

She details out, from her perspective, the process that Cohen went through to secure a 2 million dollar donation from her.

Now, individual posts like this, you have to be cautious of - but given that, in this post, she details some of her own personal issues honestly, as well as gets some corroboration from other NAMED individuals in the comments, the post is worth paying attention to.

I'm not sure what it will take for Integral Institute and Ken Wilber, to STOP giving any oxygen to this guy, but hopefully it will happen soon. After a year of exposure, from various sources, it can't come soon enough. (I vote, with my Sponsor Plus membership in Integral Institute, to drop this guy). When will Ken wake up about this particular issue? Anyone at I-I ever do a Q&A with Ken on this particular issue?

(Note - don't do a Q&A NOW - Ken's had a marvelous and inspiring recovery, as detailed in this blogpost, but at some point maybe someone can find out Ken's stance.)

Zaadz tag Ken Wilber

ebuddha — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:23:00 -0800

Check out Zaadz, collecting posts BY Zaadsters, that then tag their post with Ken Wilber.

You will see a few familiar bloggers, but also some people you don't normally see. But make sure to scroll down.

Gary Stamper on Ken and I-I

ebuddha — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:51:00 -0800

Some good thoughts.

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

An Update on Ken from the KW blog

ebuddha — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:18:00 -0800

Read it here.

Just saw this, been busy - but it is a full and comprehensive update, so if you haven't read it, go now.

Wishing Ken Wilber well

ebuddha — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:06:00 -0800

The news from Nomali, is that Ken is in ICU, and has been unconscious, and has been for nearly a day.

More information in these places -

This thread on Zaadz.

This thread on Integral Multiplex.

Update: I haven't seen something "official" on this, which is surprising. I've been looking - will keep you posted.

Integral Institute Shakeup

ebuddha — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:56:00 -0800

More over at Vince's blog.

Question for Integral Theorists Out There

ebuddha — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:54:00 -0800

In the previous post, I was investigating ethics - and I came across the Wikipedia article on Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

What struck me, as regarding Wilber theory, was the following Further Stages entry:

In his empirical studies of persons across their life-span, Kohlberg came to notice that some people evidently had undergone moral stage regression. He was faced with the option of either conceding that moral regression could occur, or revise his theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages wherein the emerging stage has not yet been adequately integrated into the personality.^[8] In particular Kohlberg noted of a stage 4½ or 4+, which is a transition from stage four to stage five, sharing characteristics of both.^[8] In this stage the individual has become disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning. Culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to having society itself be culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two as the individual considers society's conflicting interests with their own choices relatively and morally wrong.^[8] Kohlberg noted that this was often seen in students entering college.^[8]^[11]^{The question I have is this - if "regression" can happen, what does this do to Wilber's understanding that "you can't go backward" in terms of development?"

Kohlberg seems to see this as "sub-stages", before "full" integration into the next stage. I suppose that fits with the Wilber claim, but it also leaves one adrift in analyzing any PARTICULAR person - which again, seem to me to show that using stages to analyze an individual person is a non-starter.

Also, if you look at the bottom of this article, the See Also section, notice that there is a list of other theorists of development - cognitive, faith, ego, and psychosocial.

This, for me, throws into clear relief how much "integral" theory is in alignment with, and dependent on, developmental theories. So should integral theory be considered, in the main, a meta-developmental theory?}

Integral Institute CEO - first you see him, now you don't!

ebuddha — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:20:00 -0800

This is pure "gossip talk", and I really shouldn't be indulging in it - but Vince has a good question on Ken Wilber's recent CEO Search announcement.

Integral Views - What are the basics?

ebuddha — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:02:00 -0800

I will have more to say about this over the weekend - lost a pretty good post on this - but if you feel like you have the time, read the following three posts (if you haven't already)

Integralisms.

Diversity of the Integral Movement.

Two kinds of criticisms of integral theory: internal and external:

Again, more later.

Joe Perez - Integral Stations

ebuddha — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:44:00 -0800

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.

Finished Integral Spirituality Over the Weekend

ebuddha — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:47:00 -0800

There was a lot to take in, of course. A few quick thoughts, on somewhat new stuff, and just random comments.

a. Lots of jumping from concept to concept - it is muddled to see how they all go together - lines, states, stages, quadrants, zones.
b. The zone concept especially was utilized to a great degree. It's a good concept as well.
c. One very good single page summary of Advaita Vedanta. What I thought was interesting about the "5 Bodies" - gross, dreaming, subtle, causal, non-dual (I hope that is correct, typing from memory - I'll go back and fix this post otherwise). Now, as the Advaitins always say, these states are ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE. Accessible, now, to you. (And Big Mind shows, this, as well.) Ken Wilber then jumps to "growing" on the vertical level of the Wilber-Combs lattice, and how you advance through meditation and training, but skips over a bit, how, if the non-dual body is accessible now, then meditation isn't necessary to access the non-dual. Which again, is part of what the older advaitins teach, and part of what neo-advaitins teach.

d. I would say the crux of new concepts, at least what is leaned on a lot, aren't so new, but presented in a clearer, more coherent manner. This again, would be the Wilber-Combs lattice, and the eight zones (modes of viewing and studying the world).

e. Shadow work is sort of thrown in there, but a great description of me-it, on the psychological level.

f. There was a lot of leaning on the concept of "stages", and that people are AT certain stages, however, I'm still not sure to what degree this holds up. I still don't find many people who are "at" only orange, or "at" only blue, etc. People seem to hold differing values, across the red/amber/blue/green spectrum, depending on an ISSUE. It would be great if the type of Zone #2 and Zone #4 studies, could show that "in general" a person is at so-and-so stage, but I need to see it to believe it. Because it could just as easily be, on the values issues that:

i. Values for different issues are at different levels - and this means that a person ISN'T at a particular level.
ii. The various studies - Graves, Leovinger, Keegan - definitely show a one-way arrow towards greater complexity, and a greater depth, in people. From the me to the us, to the universal. However, one thing glossed over, is that if this in any way meshes with the SD concept of colors, and thus the Wilber-Combs matrix.

Basically, I need to see that the various types of complexity and growth - morals, cognition, values, etc - share anything other than increasing complexity. Could it be possible that someone could be at value stage orange, yet be at moral stage 3?   I think so, as you can find fundamentalists, fully committed to the mythic religious vision, who nevertheless are operationally, at the highest ethical level, in their personal behaviour.

A lot hangs on the answer to this question though, as Wilber universalizes, the "level" or "stage" a person is at, and collects the various different developmental lines, under the same rubric.

This would be the vertical side of the Wilber-Combs matrix.

No one I meet though, is "at" a stage. People to me seem all over the place. I'm not sure that stages work, in the real world. (I'm probably wrong, but thought I would point that out.)

g. I really like the small part - but very valuable - about upper levels of faith. Not only mythic faith, but the "i-thou" love relationship, in spirituality, continuing always, even in the midst of realizing non-duality. Don't skip over your heart, and the heart of the world!

h. At some point, I will bet money that this "full spectrum analysis", will make its way into various evaluation tools. Already the tools used by corporate America are very, very, good, for example, when used for hiring both for pyche traits, and for skills traits. I can only see this being an addition.

i. By the same token, however, related to points h (evaluations) and f (assigning people at stages), I don't even know what stage I am at!!   Especially, as is claimed, "green" can mask a power drive of red (isn't red always about a power drive anyway?), and so be mean green, it will be interesting to see what smart, in-depth assessments can pick up about where a particular person is at.

What else have you seen from the book? Your thoughts?

Big Mind, 3-2-1: Shifting Perspectives, Hard Character Lines

ebuddha — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:39:00 -0800

I wonder about the efficacy of Big Mind, 3-2-1 - well, for me, specifically about Big Mind.

There is no doubt, that a perspective shift is engaged in, when Big Mind practice occurs. As always though, as for my other big realizations, it fades away.

Perhaps it is the nature of the beast - all realizations fade away - I shouldn't expect anything else, right?

What is so, is so. And - that means "me experienced as me", and "other experienced as other" as well.

I'm not sure, really. I've had enough peak experiences, enough time in silent awareness, in meditation, watching the universe quite literally "rise and fall", as one breath, in one moment - it still seems strange that I so easily revert to "me against the world", objectifying and identifying myself with - er - myself...

I'm sure there is something I am missing there, so I decided to kvetch on it...

Integral Practice Review - What Is Clear

ebuddha — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:08:00 -0800

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?

Integral and Altitude

ebuddha — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:54:00 -0700

Umguy reminds me of what I consider to be a great chart - from What Is Altitude?

The chart is useful to see the change from the "old" colors to the new color scheme from Integral Institute.

UPDATE: One other point - from the article -

"States and stages, however, are deeply interrelated: research has shown that continued development through stages can help convert passing states into permanent traits, which is one of the more exciting findings of an Integral Approach....)"

Another attempt in this line - and I STILL haven't seen Wilber or II give credit, but maybe I've missed it - is Timothy Leary's 8 Circuit Model of Consciousness.

In regards to the Integral Institute quote above, I think the power of imprints - as permanent traits - hasn't been examined in depth, that I have seen.

Joe Perez on Integral Spirituality

ebuddha — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:26:00 -0700

Another perspective.

Post-Metaphysical Thinking, and an Integral Spirituality review.

ebuddha — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:15:00 -0700

A good overview of Habermas, and some post-critical philosophy. (Philosophy after the "death of objectivity".)

This is especially important, as Haberman is addressing from his framework, what Wilber is attempting to address with Integral Spirituality. By the way, here is a review.

Namely, as is said by the article, a “contextualist challenge to the realist intuition".

More than any other work, Integral Spirituality attempts to point out a way how RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS can "transcend and include" the lessons of post-modernism, without losing the essence of the traditions. That is a big push for Wilber, in the sense of categorizing the types of knowledge domains (inner, outer, 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person.)

Due Process and Extraordinary Rendition - a Canadian Case

ebuddha — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:48:00 -0700

Any integral, or any spiritual, person, can look at some of the world scenarios, must shake their head.

After yesterday's discussion about habeas corpus, we now find that Maher Arar, one of the people that could have possibly disappeared into a criminal justice system - forever.

Luckily, he didn't. Here is the Washington Post story.

Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.

Remember, this is a mild, soft-spoken COMPUTER PROGRAMMER. He could be me - about the right age - or you. And this has already HAPPENED.

The legislation that I was referring to yesterday, would be used to prevent a person like Maher Arar, from even having the ability to question his detention.

The thing is, governments WANT to cooperate with the United States. Bad information from intelligence agents happen, and will get things wrong. And people need to be held while the truth is figured out. But then there needs to BE that period where humanitarian and rights of the accused take precedence, in a full legal system. From the article:

After Arar was detained in New York, Canadian authorities apparently were unaware the Americans were preparing to send him to Syria, according to the commission finding.

The RCMP contact, Inspector Michel Cabana, "was under the impression that Mr. Arar would only be detained for a short time," O'Connor's report said. "In his view, Mr. Arar was being held in a country with many of the same values as Canada."

Arar filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court, but the case was dismissed by a judge citing "national security" issues. Arar is also seeking compensation from the Canadian government.

"National Security". And national security is important, temporary seizures MUST happen - and should happen. But they need to be temporary, and subject to review.

Again, for all we know, there may be people LIKE Arar, that have disappeared. After all, many people seized have not had a court overhear WHY they were seized.

I don't hear Ken Wilber, or others, adding their voice to condemning these type of betrayals of integral values.

Why is that? Is it so much more important to release another book about Integralism, than actually address fundamental betrayals of integral values, happening in one's own society?

Health Care! An actual policy debate, resilient communities and integral values

ebuddha — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:51:00 -0700

I'm continuing this series on integral values - even though this is a rumination of one.

One of the most urgent issues in the United States, is the issue of health care. At one last count, there exists 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent, of citizens who do not have access to health care.

The article I point to above, shows that even of those who attempt to access private health, 9 out of 10 do not choose to - because of course, expense, not getting full coverage, all the exceptions for previous conditions, etc.

How would lack of health care, in such a rich nation, be viewed through the lens of integral values?

When a nation becomes wealthy enough, every nationa - EXCEPT the United States - has chosen universal health care.

And you can see why -

a. Practicality - health care is either crisis, or is fairly unnecessry. At any one time, 90% of people don't need health care. They just need to be taken care of when accidents happen, when they fall sick, and as old age approaches.

Given this, a shared pool of risk, is always the smartest way to go. And of course, a nation is a very large pool.

There are also a lot of savings in billing, dual coverage, fights with care provider, etc, that make private insurance simply impractical and expensive. This is borne out also, in the fact that the United States pays more per person than any other country, but in terms of overall health, is less healthy than the average person in other countries.

Ths particular analysis, looks at INTEGRAL cities - in some sense incorporating "green" values, into looking at how to build "resilient" cities, and then creates an "Urban Bill of Rights", that attempts to stand in for integral values.

Here is the Urban Bill of Rights:

The Urban Bill of Rights

1. The right to see significant greenery, the sky, and the sun from within one’s home.

2. The right to natural cross ventilation in one’s home.

3. The right to enjoy peace and quiet within one’s home with windows open.

4. The right to sleep at night without excessive artificial ambient light.

5. The right to be free in one’s neighborhood from pollution of air, water, soil, and plant life.

6. The right to be free from undesirable local environmental change caused by poor urban design, such as wind, shadow and noise canyons, excess heat caused by overpaving, etc.

7. The right to adequate space for storage, hobbies, and other personal activities in and around each dwelling unit, including play space for children in family housing.

8. The right to mobility, regardless of income. If automobile use is discouraged by prohibitive pricing, public transit must be adequate and low cost.

9. The right to parking space for each household.

10. The right of convenient access, on foot if possible, to basic daily needs, such as good quality food at reasonable prices, daily household and medical supplies, laundry facilities, etc.

11. The right of convenient access, by foot, private vehicle, or transit, to places of employment.

12. The right of equal access to the commons and to taxpayer-funded and other public facilities, such as government buildings, libraries, museums, bridges, and roadways.

13. The right of access within walking distance to nature, recreation, outdoor exercise, and discovery, including parks, open space, and areas inhabited by wildlife.

14. The right to equal and adequate police, fire, and emergency services, which shall not be infringed on the basis of income or neighborhood character.

15. The right to participate in and guide, through equitable, representative, democratic processes, land use decisions that affect oneself, one’s neighborhood, and one’s community."

So this is one communities attempt to be integral, which takes in a whole host of individual, environmental, social concerns, while keeping the eye on longterm practical survivability of a community.

Too pie in the sky?

Also posted at zaadz

Ken Wilber 9/11 and Iraq Post and a VERY IMPORTANT 2nd Tier question

ebuddha — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:47:00 -0700

I see yesterday that on the KW blog, there was reposted a commentary about the war in Iraq - the piece originally dates from 2003. I thought it would be useful - for myself at least - to critique this piece. Note - this is going to get long, as I've spent some time in the analysis below: So here goes - First off, it is interesting to note that the post contains two separate issues - and conflates them, to a degree - the attack on 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The connecting tissue for this conflation is this post is ABOUT Iraq, yet posted on 9/11.

5 Years Later - Integralism and the Larger World

ebuddha — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:03:00 -0700

Today of course, is 5 years since 9/11. I'm not sure how other people marked this occasion. I spent some time this morning in meditation and prayer, wishing, visualizing peace for all people.

At the same time, practically, I have to acknowledge, that the world doesn't seem a safer place than it was five years ago. The various tensions that mark the world stage, have only increased in that time.

So what has integral theory given to this, this improvement in society's fortunes, it's contributions to reducing violence, creating more peace?

It's hard for me to look for any specific or original contribution of "integral theory". Ken Wilber has been working on "The Many Faces of Terrorism" for awhile now - I'm assuming shortly after 9/11 - but on his official site, no word of any progress on this since he wrote on the official site:

I’ve almost finished a new book entitled The Deconstruction of the World Trade Center—The Many Faces of Terrorism. I will also keep you posted on its progress here on this site.

And that was written as of September 13, 2004.

Still, outside of any official integral theory, the integral attitude - with an open heart, a clear mind, a deep care, and practical passion, while being open to the many perspectives of the world, and coming to solutions based on a correct VALUING of all perspectives (not treating all as equal) - I see that approach still giving some of the best contributions.

CJ Smith has been one of the better blogsites tracking the integral approach on the leading edge, but not tied to any particular theory. Followed by Tuff Ghost.

And I'm sure that there is more, that I am missing.

In the end, the "integral project" ends up BEING this integral attitude. Formulating actions based on the perceptions and revelations in all fields - the practical (scientific, business, power relations), the humanities (societal goods of stability, freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc), and the religious (practice, prayer, interconnectedness of all beings).

To this, I dedicate this day. May all beings advance in their lives, with passion, practicality, joy, and love - and may this all express in wise action, leading to great peace.

Joe Perez on Why Integral Remains On the Down-Low

ebuddha — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:32:00 -0700

Here is the link.

I also leave a comment.

Given the multi-disciplinary approach of Wilber, it would be interesting to see what academic framework Wilber's work would fit in. Theological? Sociological?

If anything, my preference would be in the framework of Habermas -with a spiritual element. There are enough grounding elements in the Habermas framework to allow Wilber entry.