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.

I've been remiss in not blogging this, mainly, because I've been busy, and passed over A Few Random Notes, when it showed up in my reader.

But then I read Joe's post on the treatments he is starting, and I backtracked at the Until site.

So here's what is going on:

Chronic pain. As I've written before, I've been suffering from an excrutiatingly irritating form of chronic pain since last fall. I've chosen not to say more about the subject on my weblog, but I want to mention that the problems have persisted and continue to impact my quality of life (and quality and quantity of writing). I've been doing hyponotic visualizations (vision questing), but it's difficult to say if it's helping or not. I would say no to helping with the pain, but yes it's helping me feel less beaten down and disempowered by the pain.

HIV. My immune system functioning continues to sink into the toilet (with a high viral load count and CD4 count in the low double-digits). Finally things have come together to the point where I can start new HIV medications. I have applied (and hope to be approved) for "compassionate use" access to a new Merck drug that is an integrase inhibitor.

Joe's treatment post points out that he now IS approved, and is will be beginning a new type of drug therapy, so let's all wish him the best.

It's really funny - I've been reading Joe's stuff, since I got into blogging and reading blogs.  Now that blogging has exploded into ten million different ways to get information, he is still one of the sites that I subscribe to.  His honesty, and unique - and can I say artistic? - method of analyzing and writing have given me hours of entertainment, education, and reflection.

He does feel, to me, like a valued member of my tribe, and I've come to care, through this venue called "the internet".

So, I am wishing Joe all the best - I hope others will as well.

Hey, why not.

It's a good jumping off point, at any rate, to the discussion.

But here is the Dr. Phil way!

At any rate, here is a relationship quiz.  Good place to start, actually, as the less "points" you have, the better your relationship.  Also - if accurately portrayed as troublespots - then you can begin to focus on what to "improve".

I had a chance to see the Fountain recently.

It was truly a marvelous experience. Basically, for me, I get throw into recognition of the "always everpresent", which happens sometimes, when there are very good "pointing out" instructions, and the shift happens.

And this film did this for me. 

But the additional realization of this film -(who knows that it is a true realization, but I will share it anyway) is the essential human-ness that we are - that I am, that she is, that you are, that we are - remains.  The laws, feelings, issues, that happen for the bodymind, cco-exist right beside, interpentrating, the recognition of one Consciousness.

The movie, in a large human sense, is a tragedy.  In three different times, in three different worlds, (also a progression through the Bardos here), Man is Striving.  For love, on the quest, to save Her, to save Himself, to save the world. 

Fighting against death.  Fighting for redemption.  And just as it appears he can - it ends.  He fails to save his love.  He fails in his quest.  He fails in immortality.

But IN this failure, the transformation of life happens.  In this surrender, the light of consciousnesss (hinted at in all the myths, dreams, symbols), finally appears completely.

And then the realization is that this light is - and was - always present. 

So for me, at the end, "I" live my dream, and interpenetrating this, is the recognition of the Truth.

And I say YES to both.  Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes!



In terms of "logical storytelling", I would say that this film is mediocre.  I reference B.S. and integral criticism in my last post. 

This movie gives an example of how "logical criticism" - analyzing plot, character development, etc - would truly say that this is a mediocre film.

It is only in the recognition of the "deeper message", that the truth of this movie comes shining through.

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 great post by David Jon here.

"Yet, I was still taken up with the promise of what a comprehensive philosophy would look like. It wasn't Ken Wilber's vision that held me in thrall anymore. It was the underlying nature of a comprehensive philosophy–i.e., a non-reductionistic philosophy–that I sensed as being the original basis for my resonance with Ken Wilber's work and what I might now choose to call 'Integral Cognition.'"

I would agree with this - and I find that those who attempt to embrace the highest forms of - Spirit, Mind, Body, Other, Soul, Skillful Means In Living - these are the people I want to be my "tribe" so to speak.

Grounded in the world.
In communion with the Divine Soul
Self aware, of one's own shadows and B.S.
Learning, giving, growing, creating - "He not busy being born is busy dying".
Relaxing into the Buddha's smile, that is perfect as it is.

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.

Here is the link.

I particularly like the section on relationships - I often wonder what others think are the best books on relationships.

Funny enough, there isn't a category on careers.  Something like What Color Is Your Parachute or The Pathfinder.

How many of these books listed have you read? 

Great little tool.

This is actually a tool whereby people can start creating more focused assessments, based on certain diets, exercises, career assessments, etc.

Architecting the skills, competencies, and assessments available for the integral practice.

Integral Practice starts with a five emanation star, emanating outward, thickening with the depth of the levels developed.

Creating these assessments using online tools, then gathering together practice groups for activies that suggest themselves out of the assessments.

The main five areas -

Body

a. Diet assessment
b. Flexibility assessment
c, Strength assessment
d. Supplements assessment

Spiritual practice

a. Meditation practice - brainwave assessment
b. Nondual understanding - assessment based on probing questions, assessment given online - answers rated by peers in the practice.
c. Merging assessment - seeing others, all,  as yourself
d. Dis-identification assessment - seeing others, all, own self, as NOT the Self.
e. Energetic practice

Career as self-expression, service

a. Personality assessment, broad trends and interests.
b. Career assessment - online, based on Pathfinder.
c. Initial and near term goals - evaluated by peers.
d. 5 year goals - evaluated by peers, based on a-c above

Interpersonal

a. Partnership needs/health assessment
b. Friends and family assessment
c. Community service assessment

Psychological health - personal and shadow work

a. Personal psychological assessment
b. Empowerment index - personal and 360 assessment
c. Blame/ownership pendulum.  Family and friend 360 assessment
d. Emotional reactivity/nonreactivity assessment

ACTION REQUEST: 

Since these assessments can begin to be created, I'm assuming the knowledge for the assessments is already out there as well.  For any of the above life dimensions, if you are aware of associated assessments, I would appreciate you pointing them out to me!

I'm late to this, but I have now also taken the PersonalDNA assessement.

I am a 'Generous Inventor'.

I must say - this is one of the cooler types of tests around.  sliding and percentages, x and y axis, very nice.

I also took the superhero test - I come out as mostly Superman - but a very average joe superman, as I scored only 60% at the highest.

And then, on the Medieval Archetype test (thanks Victoria), I come out as the Lover.

I'm not sure how accurate all of these are - after all, what do the Lover, Superman, and Generous Inventor have to do with each other?

But they are fun!

On a serious note, these same type of assessments, I hope to actually fall over to skills, and then be integrated with one's eportfolio.

Through last year, I would occasionally point to the Inner-Net blog, while Nipun and Guri were doing their trek through India on a dollar a day.

Well, they've been back awhile.  And now, they have an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about their trip!

Truly inspiring lives, truly inspiring.

Go read here, but the key lines in my opinion:

One comment I have about the 321 process, however, is that in and of itself, it might only clear away minor emotional charges. I agree it's a great tool for identifying where projections might exist in relationships - and if you're lucky enough to be someone who's fairly clear and free flowing, then 321 might be all you'll ever need. But for deeply embedded or particularly snarled emotional stuff, some actual therapy and additional energy work is probably going to be required. The farther back in time an "emotional charge" is originating - in other words the farther back into your childhood or infancy a pathology goes - then the more difficult it will be to truly discharge that emotional energy and clear that block or snarl. Or you might find that you identify or clear a projection with one person, only to find the pattern repeating itself in other relationships, over and over again. It's like playing that damn gopher game at the carnival - you bash one, only to have another pop up right next to it.

The "mystery" of both our own personal emotional content and interactions, and then the emotional (and power) dynamics with others are worth commenting on, as this gets short shrift in integralism.  I think you also must have been DOING emotional work for awhile - either in therapy, or as part of some group process - to truly be able to grok this level that Jean is speaking about. (deeply embedded or snarled emotional stuff).

For myself, I was in therapy for a few years - and then also had the following.

A long time ago now, I participated in a MUCH different community, and a much different emotional practice.  I won't say too much about the community, because there were definite "cultish tendencies" happening, that I don't want to reward, even by mentioning - but there were some valuable lessons as well.

As far as the practice went, it was really "turning up the volume" on emotions, and giving it to God, praying with the emotional energy for clarity and for God to enter.

One of the revelatory aspects of that work, was FEELING - on a deep, existential level - just how much how I act, and everyone acts - is based on a constricted, egotistical self-justifying, emotional and defensive ego structure, rather than truly being PRESENT.

Basically, I - and we - act out of bure bullshit a hell of a lot more than I - and we -  think. 

Imagine this scenario -

Every time you act out of something other than "love" or "truth", or "wisdom" - and the same with others around you - you feel it, like a pain, or like a nails across a chalkboard.

When someone acts with a very constricted emotionality -
When I or someone justifies their position
When I or someone gossips,
when I or someone is mean,
when I or someone is defensive,
when I or someone is irrational,
when I or someone makes unnecessary conflict.

You feel it.  Like a throbbing toothache,  or a stab in the heart, I feel the consequences of being divorced from God, in how I defend, in every rude comment, in every lost soul on the street, in every snobbish intellectual commentary proclaiming union with source (as opposed to actual union with source)

That ability to feel separation from source, from being present - this was both a blessing and a curse (and in the end, more of a curse).

And the thing is - I would feel on a gut level that the daily actions and interactions from separation from source, quite outnumber the interaction from being one with source. 

And yet, nothing can be done about it - I feel my own limitations to "act" in a more loving, true way, and definitely with others, I cannot do much, except to feel the separation. Although slowly, I would end up being more present.

As one can imagine, confrontation was sometimes utilized in this mode of interaction, and being made aware of acting from that which is not source - "acting from illusion", as the case is made.

This was sometimes painful and rewarding - as truth is rewarding, when the confrontation was focused on my own limitations/games.

And sometimes this was painful and not rewarding - when the confrontation was meant to prop up the cultish aspects of the organization.

This "emotional and existential separation from God" - that can be delved into and felt by anyone, and with it my own and other people's ACTS are also felt - as coming from separation or not, or some combiation of the two.

It's a powerful ability, but a bit of a hopeless one as well.

At any rate - the integral approach offers nothing I have seen to facilitate growth on this particular level.  This level of emotional and gut truthfulness of being separate - acting out of fear, ego, greed, etc (seven deadly sins and more) or acting out of a deep, solid, loving, and strong, emotional open and flexible- "real" presence.

Are you LOVE or are you separate?  Who and what do you SERVE? In this moment?  And this moment?

On the other hand, experiences of oneness can happen on a level OUTSIDE the normal mode of mind/body emotional and will interactions.  And focusing on the separation AT THE LEVEL of emotion and will - is this useful, or is this in itself, reinforcing the separate world??

At the end, I had to disconnect myself from the process - not only because of the cultish tendencies of the organization (I always kept a distance from the org), but also because the process ended up being too painful - the daily grind of feeling separation both in myself and around me, mellowed by the sense of emotional merging with the Divine that the practice encouraged.

And now, I have more peace.  Less agony/ecstasy.  Also, I am still "aware" of the B.S., of separation - but now I "see" it, rather than "feeling" it, on an ongoing basis.

And I don't know whether this is good or bad.  During that time, I was more emotionally connected to others - and people felt this - but I was suffering a hell of a lot more.  Now, I am less emotionally connected to others - but I am much happier and more at peace.

I've wandered far afield from  Jean's original post.  

But what is clear is - and this goes back to the issue of things that are emotionally and gut charged -  there is very little in integralism itself which deals with the immediacy of FEELING the daily separation from source, and how to integrate this, on a gut and emotional level.  There is a lot of "assuming the close" - we are already one with THAT SOURCE - which of course is also TRUE, at one level.

I'm not sure this core PERSONAL level - of being truly present or being separate - must be worked through to truly be FULLY realized.

But my gut feeling is, yes, this PERSONAL knot of separation must be untangled, or released.

If we work out this feminine/masculine dynamic thing, we will be cooking with gas!

Even though I enjoy the rant, it is serious as well, in the sense that have of the population would "benefit" from Integral Practice - so what would be a feminine name for this type of practice?

Full Spectrum Living?

Euphorice Living?

Suggestions...? 

I'm working on the details, but this will revolve around -

up to 8 people
Weekly conference call
Stating commitments to integral practice, for the week, on phone and by spreadsheet list
Buddy support - commited to frequent conversations (email, phone, IM) with buddy around own keeping practice commitments. (Group will need to be 6 or 8)
Assessment of "progress" - both in initial intake, and then group assessments.

I have the use of a few cool web tools to do this process.  And luckily, this won't take a lot of work to setup, as the tools are pre-existing (God bless Web 2.0)  But the long and short of it is to:

a.  Make your integral commitments and intentions available to a small, dedicated group.  This in itself has more effectiveness than we give credit for.
b. Create a history and trust with this small group, to take advantage of the power of a small group.
c. Track progress over time.

Please send me an email if you are interested in this.  I think this will be highly useful to people out in the boonies, but we will see.  

This is an experiment in web 2.0 support groups.

I would love for you to join the experiment!

As I mentioned yesterday, there is a lot going on regarding the forming of ILP Groups.

There is an ILP Group happening in the Bay Area - meeting in Berkely - and this one is certified by Integral Institute, as it is led by Terry Patten.

I am figuring out whether my time is free enough to join.  I hope that I can free my time up.

And then, in Seattle, there is a lot going on in Integral. 

Included in this, is the work being done by the organization that includes my favorite integral and whole life economist, Daniel O'Connor (blogging at Catallaxis).

His organization is creating iPraxis Practitioners Circle, which is a very cool concept.

So more and more happening!

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