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!