I saw this article about Calling Bullshit, over at the Watchdog blog - it is an article mainly about the vapidness of our current press, especially as it comes to being stenographers for the White House, rather than skeptical inquirers.

I will fess up - I am built in a skeptical way - if I perceive something that strikes me as B.S., not truthful, I immediately am psychically galvanized.  "What is going on?"  "Why did they say that?", or even better "WTF?"

This particular voice - this identity - is a particularly strong identity in the awareness field comprising myself.

Now, I do have SOME space from this voice.  Especially when you sit in meditation, and as the chattering mind runs down, runs out of places to hide, I get treated to a spectacle of the "bullshit detector mind", inside of me, and seeing in a sense, just how shallow that particular voice can be.

The problem is - this voice is very very useful, to me, and very, very valuable.  That ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, to make determinations about people, positive and negative, to be truthful and blunt with oneself - it really is quite a good survival mechanism in the world.  Even in the job situation, to see a path through to a clean product.

As such, this voice can be very hard to disidentify with, as my self-identity - to the degree that I a identified with anything, has a big degree of identification with this voice.

Now, here's my sweeping statement - BLOGGERS especially, INCLUDING integral bloggers, have that voice in spades - it's not just me!! 

And I think there is some proof to this fact, given all the integral bloggers activity regarding Ken's Wyatt Earp post.  (yes, this means YOU reading this!)  Especially since a lot of integral thinking has to do with SYNTHESIS, as analysis.  When you engage in synthesis anlysis, you engage the limitations of one train of thought - focusing on the contradictions (and b.s.) of that particular train of thought for - hopefully - a higher view.

And the thing is, there are problems with this voice - there is bullshit in the bullshit detector, if you don't mind my language.  A few spring to mind -

a. Not all B.S. is equal.  To give an example, from the political world - what type of b.s. is more damaging - lying about a sexual encounter in the White House, or lying to the american public to get people into a war?  (I'm not providing answers to this, just laying out the scenario.) 
b. You can "fool" the b.s. meter, by appealing to the frame (this is a lie/self-contradiction) by setting up fake b.s. - we see this a lot in the current political market via smearing of opponents, dishonestly, or trumping up the charges, or blowing out of proportion an inconsistency in behavoir as a HUGE character issue.
c. The b.s. meter can be misapplied - for example, in one sense, b.s. and ethics are related.

Example:  Someone isn't "in integrity" between their stated beliefs and their actions - but recognized that , is not the same as saying that person is unethical.  So a sense of  "moral outrage", which is found when someone else transgresses against a moral value of another (moral turpitude!) - is often conflated with a straight out b.s. meter.  Thus people will accuse each other of this or that, or people will say "you are coming from an amber place - improve your colors - get your a$$ into violet!".

Or some such.

So, what does this have to do with integral, or with spirituality?

Well, I'm just exploring ideas right now (and by the way, saying "I'm just exploring, while true, is a good defense against the b.s. meter, because you aren't, you know, saying something authoritatively!), but here goes.

I'd like to see what an "integral b.s. meter" would look like.  Or, without the integral language, how a b.s. meter "should" work, from a higher consciousness place.  As I can't see us integral bloggers getting less attached to our b.s. calling (although it would probably be a good personal growth experiment, if I, for say three months, said nothing that was "critical", or pointing out the limitations of a particular point of view or action.  But given my job, that is nearly impossible.)

a.  Focusing on "the facts maam".  My main issue with the Wilber  Earpy posts, was the obvious misrepresentation of another's views.  While there were others who had some moral problems with the language, or the harshness, that didn't seem to come from a higher perspective, if you deem those as "subjective", then the obviousness of the misrepresentation of Frank Visser's actual post, was still problematic.

b.  Developing a "ranking scale" of b.s.  I think this would take awhile, but - it might be worth doing.  Does one episode of anger, suddenly discount 10 years of being a saint otherwise?  Can that type of judgment be made.  This is also important, in the spiritual community, as - should spiritual leaders have human foibles?  Should they always be exemplars of human behavior?  Are they allowed to laugh at bad jokes? Can they fart in public?     (I figure three bad episodes do disqualify a particular teacher.  Maybe even two - sorta like the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".)   Does repeated horrible integral analysis that misrepresents both facts, and then also lies by omission, discredit that analysis?  I could say this about a couple of integral bloggers out there - and back it up, based on MANY different instances of their writing - but I don't, for three reasons. 

1. In the spirit of comity (brotherly love!)
2. because hey, my perspective is limited, and
3. There are few enough of us, that it doesn't make sense to argue about angels on the head of a pin, right?

Lastly, when we engage our b.s. detector, it is important, from a spiritual perspective to remember "You are not that".   And - for me at least - distinguishing between that "outraged reaction" or "that's B.S!" and the fundament of awareness that is my true nature - that is important as well.   If my energy is in the b.s. detector, rather than enlightened awareness, then that is a problem. 

So, I ask the question - how would an "enlightened" or "integral" b.s. detector work?  I would REALLY appreciate some thoughtful responses to this post.

Thanks!

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

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.

From Mind Hacks:

So much pscyhology being only a province of "self-improvement, mental healing, and psychological health".  Now psychologists can assist in torture - oh happy days!

Note:  I'm clearly and purposely being "biased' in reporting this, and doing so for a reason - if you are interested, please make sure to read the links that the post has.

Hey there,

Been awhile since I've posted.  Some updates -

1.  I've been obsessively trying out various web 2.0 applications, in the area of group projects, reviews, and wiki's - looking for the right combination of:

a. Groups interaction
b. Group task-tracking
c. Reviews - (both for projects, practices, books, etc)
d. Peer-to-peer.

That are also do it yourself.

So far, I haven't found the perfect combination. 

My views on Integral Practice have shifted over the last year and a half, from documenting the theory and practice of various practices, to seeing these practices DOCUMENTED, in realtime and online, in a group of mutually supportive advocates. 

Thus the search for web 2.0 software to fit this.   (If anyone would find it interesting to have my experiences with these applications documented here, let me know - but if that interest doesn't exist, no need to clutter the site.)

What this brings me back to, is what I would call "Skillful Mean Peer to Peer". 

Anyone reading my site here, has seen this ideal displayed for the last year or so.  The problem is getting that goal into practice.   Much harder than the idea!

Good PDF on emotional intelligence, covering different dimensions of emotional intelligence.

From the University of Texas:

Not being a procrastinator is essential for those who live "integrally", employing skills in different dimensions.

I'm curious.  Has anyone ever experienced a tremendous CHANGE in your own procrastination tendencies? 

With a caveat here, that you have had the same procrastination tendencies for at least 5 years. Has anyone changed, in terms of those tendencies, if there is an established 5 year pattern in adulthood?

If so - what changed this for you?

From Discovery, new research suggesting that "psychological immaturity" is more prevalent than ever, whatever age.

Also called "psychological neotony".  We now have the scientific name for Boomerism!

What is interesting also, is how economic needs tend to kickstart and maintain this immaturity:

In the mid-20th century, however, another force kicked in, due to increasing need for individuals to change jobs, learn new skills, move to new places and make new friends.

So the very activities that make us economically valuable - flexibility, the ability to learn on the job, create oneself anew - possibly are someof the same factors that contribute to psychological immaturity:

"People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.”

Charlton added that since modern cultures now favor cognitive flexibility, “immature” people tend to thrive and succeed, and have set the tone not only for contemporary life, but also for the future, when it is possible our genes may even change as a result of the psychological shift.

This post from How to Save the World is titled Why We Hate Complexity.

It's a good post - I especially like his posits of why we hate complexity:

I think the reason is that the acknowledgement of complexity, of a system's being beyond our understanding and analysis

    * reduces our sense of power and control
    * increases our sense of helplessness and insecurity, and
    * reduces our confidence in the predictability of the future.

This also reminded me of a classic book by Alan Watts titled The Wisdom of Insecurity.

In a sense, Integral Practice, is an attempt to navigate the world in a way that a way that is true to our spiritual, emotional, social, and physical selves.  And this involves participation - hopefully participation that WORKS - for the most part. 

But in the end - the emptiness/fullness of phenomena, and the encounter with dissolution of the self - this will never be fully solved by any practice, any way, any belief system.

We build sand castles out of our lives, and invest these sand castles with our selves, our sense of ownership, our loves, our projects, our communions, and our creativity.

Because this is what humans do.  Scorpions sting.  Humans seek meaningful activity.  

The confrontation with dissolution, with death, beyond that meaningful activity, is almost an anti-integral practice.  But spiritually and existentially necessary, just the same.

I've been reading Katherine at Dating God's posts and woes around here statistics course.

As usual, her posts resound with the incisive descriptiveness and zest of her prose - even in the midst of angst.

But I hope she can keep at it, if not with this teacher, than with another.

Now, this is a jumping off point - and isn't related to Kate at all, but this leads me to a long-standing annoyance I have, that I'm going to post about here.

I would like to - here - emphasize STRONGLY, just how important, yet minimized statistics have been in the whole unfolding of the human potential movement, the weekend workshop movement, and the self-help movements.

The use of statistics in any type of change program is THE FACTOR that separates:

The men from the boys
The integral from the boomers
The serious from the unserious
Authentic change management from the NEW AGE movement.

It truly shocks me to no end, how, for various self-help programs, various practices, etc, the main mode of collecting feedback is the testimonial.

The testimonial?

The FREAKIN TESTIMONIAL??

Because you know, testimonials, these have a well-respected evidence gathering capability. Starting from the TOOTH FAIRY, I believe...

Look, statistics research, statistical methods - the use and promulgation of statistics as a field of study was pioneered one hundred years ago, and has been in general use for over 50 in universities.

Would it KILL any of the self-help movement gurus to incorporate a statistical methodology in their change management programs?

And I may be wrong - but I do not see any of the big boys and self-help gurus - be it David Deida, or Integral Institute, or Deepak Chopra, commiting to a published statistical methodology of collection, regarding their change management programs.

Actually, on the Deepak Chopra - considering he is an MD, and I am sure he had to go through a rigorous statistics study program, I might be missing the published methods.  But there sure are not easily accessible.

Now, there are exceptions that prove the rule, of course. 

Andrew Weil's stuff.  Some of Michael Murphy's research at Esalen.

And I have to say - and here I agree with some of the famous disparaging comments of Wilber regarding California Institute of Integral Studies (although I don't know if this still holds, so don't hold ME to it now...) -

Here is the bottom line -

It is simply inexcusable for any type of change management program to NOT have a published statistics, including methods of data collection and analytic methodology, for the change management program being advocated.

Simply inexcusable.   And fundamentally unserious.  Any time that you run into some self-help method that lacks this - while the methods and community may have tremendous value - there is an immature and lack of rigorousness to the change strategy. 

Integral Institute is still in its infancy, but I am hoping that this academic element of rigorous statistical analysis of the change managment program of ILP, is also being setup.

Now of course, as the super-bright Katherine demonstrates, statistics can be hard.  And unfortunately, there is a conflict in the type of people who are well suited to statistics, and the  type of people who are attracted to the spiritual and holistic.

Still, the job can be farmed out, if necessary, right?

End of rant...

UPDATE - Also - for anyone reading this who is connected to the Integral Institute (or maybe have their blogs read by people at II - cough cough cough) - can you pass this on?

Please?

And on understanding the causes of procrastination, rather than an action-based plan.

I'm not so sure.  I tend to view "understanding" as a whole-life psychological endeavor, that something like therapy is very useful for, to allow more freedom from childhood scripts, and mis-understandings held in the mind, and of course for simple allowing/healing.

That is very useful, but I think action-based plans - with of course right attitudes, which this approach strengthens - is more useful.

Another article in support of my happiness proposition - without going into the details of healing wounding.

I left a comment over at Ideological Putty, on "happiness".   What was surprising, was how definite an opinion I had on this topic, that I had never really coherently thought about, or put on paper. 

At any rate, I'm reprinting the comment here, because, basically, this is my current opinion on happiness.  I'm not cleaning up the comment for clarity either, so there are a couple of sentences that are confusing..

"Happiness is a learned process, and the learning process for happiness is grounded in "correct" motive and emotional stances towards life. These are MUCH more foundational for happiness than contemplative stances in life. Meditation in this sense is helpful, but it is icing on the cake, rather than the the parts of the cake (happiness) itself.

Happiness isn't much of a mystery anymore, actually.

a. Every human is born with a certain baseline emotional modality, predisposed towards harmony/disharmony, positivity/negativity, and stablility/instability.
b. The first four years are formative in either enhancing or debilitating this certain emotional baseline, in the sense of belongingness/lovingness. Various forms of natural wounding happen here.
c. The next 10 years, forming the rule structure/ideation phase of life, develops a natural trust in ego/self, rules/structure, or being enveloped in B.S. family rules, attitudes, and actions, that again, form the basis of cognitive/motive "stances" towards life, played out inside of one's ego.
d. The next seven years determine the stance of engagement with life - this of course is deeply influenced by the above - but here the "stance" towards life is taken - openness, experimentation? Retreat, surrender? Fixedness or flexibility? Very related to the sexual persona's success/failure in sexual experiences.

e & f. The process of "working on oneself", and "finding ones place in the world". In this process, healing of previous "woundings" occur (and self-actualization) because of internal lack of love/support, or internalization of various action/belief stances that are - for lack of a better word - anti-life.

In this sense, 80% of the people you meet are "not happy", or "not sane", in the sense of good mental health. (and of course, that is "average" mental health, without getting into the possibility of recognizing and living various spiritual truths). In this sense, everyone is "the walking wounded".

E&F of course, can last for a long time, perhaps one's whole life.

But with an "integral" education, one realizes certain "living truths", or the secrets of life.

1. Take care of your health.
2. Maintain a positive attitude.
3. Develop a deep sense of faith and gratitude (in life, God, meditation, community, whatever)
4. Be open and available to new experiences, challenges ("he not busy being born is busy dying")
5. ENGAGE FULLY with life, in the sense of living life with MEANING,and CONFIDENCE, in actions and beliefs.
6. While paradoxically, recognizing "humility" - that flexibility that comes with loving your neighbors as yourself, recognizing that your actions have only a limited influence, so "don't sweat the small stuff", etc - which is paradoxical in a way, because part of "e" - Engaging Fully - is CARING about the small stuff. A happy medium, basically living the Alcoholics Anonymous creed. Use good judgment, without being judgmental.
7. Find an occupation/way to express in the world that agrees with you. Doesn't have to be "the soul's job", although if that happens, great. But, something that agrees with you!

At any rate, engaging in Step "e" and "f", raises a person to the outer limits of the baseline in which "a" through "d" has given you in life. In some cases, of course, a through d might have done such a job on a person, in terms of derailing natural happiness, that chemicals may be required while healing from the effects of a negative a through d. That's why chemicals are always used as an adddition to the PRACTICE of living well.

That's the theory of happiness.

Meditation adds to happiness, in the sense of aiding the process of fast-forwarding humanity's future evolution into deeper calm, bliss, truth, etc.

But again, this is an extra on the Practice of happiness.

That's my view."

And:

"The hardest part is the psychological stuff we aren't aware of, at least for me. The psychological scotomas we suffer from, that we are blind to. These ostensibly are CAUSED by yourself, but at the same time, is unknown to yourself. In cases like that, therapy is very useful, as you can see - perhaps - how and why you are actively destroying "practicing happiness"."

Any thoughts on this, by others?  Who would agree that "happiness" is NOT some static state, but it is more a way of actively being in the world?

Through ups and downs, woes and joys, we remain together, united in our love and laughter.
You are the first sight I see in the morning (and I smile)
You are the last sight I see as I go to sleep (and I am comforted).
Your smile, your joy, your heart,
Enliven me, fill me, gladden me.

Pulsing, my heart is always filled with love for you!

For my lovely fiance, all my love

We've been having fun here over at Integral Practice (or maybe just me) with the notion of feminine and masculine.  For example, Jean's comment made me chuckle mightily:

"Ebuddha! Boy, you're just hankering for a masculine/feminine slapdown aren't you? At least your comments on GenSit over the David Jon/Victoria dialogue, and now this would seem to indicate. At any rate, let me go put on my magic grrl power Docs, and let's see if we can sort this out.

Ok, for the freakin' record, I never said that ILP in and of itself is hypermasculine. I said the ILP Kit is hypermasculine, and to me there is a big difference."

Sorry about that Jean!


At any rate, the whole comment is worth reading - and for me, it brings up a couple of important points.

How to define what is masculine and feminine, as these energies interpenetrate each other, within each person.  To a degree that I'm not sure how you can do things but have general percentages - "ITP is 80% masculine, in it's current form", "that statement is 50% ignorant of feminine realities", etc, etc.

Also, another point this brings up, in regards to the limitations of reality and messy egos, what they need to grow:

Let's say you are very good at structure, and at your "practices".  You meditate every day, do your yoga twice a week, run 3 times a week, do a heart practice nightly, go to group awareness once every two weeks, hang out with your friends once a week, spend enough quality time with your significant other,  as well as have your work, which you enjoy (and is on a strict 8 to 5 schedule as well.)

This regularity, and balance - it's a good life, a whole life, and a full life.  

But does it lead to transformation?  As Jean as pointed out, an "imbalance", an injustice - something UNcomfortable, out of one's "control", something challenging, this is as important for growth as a stable pursuit of excellence. 

Let's say one has all of the above in terms of integral practice - aren't there aspects of life that are missing - say, are you really ever challenged about your personal egoic crap?  If you are disciplined, it's really easy to hide a sense of smugness, superiority, rightness with a capital R, in a life like that, wouldn't you say?

I wonder what a nondual,  integral "encounter group" would look like?  

The stuff one learns about oneself in encounter groups, if you are simply falling into the non-dual consciousness, or responsibly going on with your practices - you may never bring sufficient attention to, and may easily learn to camouflage.

But to bring TOO much attention to these personal deficiencies - well, you are back to accepting the FALSE - as in belief in a separate, limited self - as REAL.

Thoughts on the above?

Also, I'm going to attempt to make the process of commenting here a bit easier in the next couple of months.  I've had some feedback that it's a bit of a pain...

If you have the time, the popular articles from the site.   Lots of good information for managing life.