Here is the link.

Some interesting parts:

The way to build self-discipline is analogous to using progressive weight training to build muscle. This means lifting weights that are close to your limit. Note that when you weight train, you lift weights that are within your ability to lift. You push your muscles until they fail, and then you rest.

Comment:  This seems to be true for some things, but not others.  Example:  I can be disciplined for meditation and exercise, but not, say, IT study.

It’s a mistake to try to push yourself too hard when trying to build self-discipline. If you try to transform your entire life overnight by setting dozens of new goals for yourself and expecting yourself to follow through consistency starting the very next day, you’re almost certain to fail. This is like a person going to the gym for the first time ever and packing 300 pounds on the bench press. You will only look silly.

Again, I'm not sure how true this is.  If I set a goal of 30 minutes meditation, and 30 minutes exercise, I will do those goals, but if I set a goal of 10 minutes guitar playing (which I love) or 10 minutes IT study (which is okay, interesting), that I don't do.

So something else is going on, besides building the "self-discipline" muscle.

Similarly, if you’re very undisciplined right now, you can still use what little discipline you have to build more. The more disciplined you become, the easier life gets. Challenges that were once impossible for you will eventually seem like child’s play. As you get stronger, the same weights will seem lighter and lighter.

Perhaps you try to work a solid 8-hour day without succumbing to distractions, and you can only do it once. The next day you fail utterly. That’s OK. You did one rep of 8 hours. Two is too much for you. So cut back a bit. What duration would allow you to successfully do 5 reps (i.e. a whole week)? Could you work with concentration for one hour a day, five days in a row? If you can’t do that, cut back to 30 minutes or whatever you can do. If you succeed (or if you feel that would be too easy), then increase the challenge (i.e. the resistance).

That example simply isn't my reality.  My own experience is, you truly need at least 30 days, maybe 90, for a new practice to become habitual.  (This is also something that Pavlina says, which is true, in my experience.)

But what will happen with a "new" practice, practiced independently, is that I'll keep it up for a few days, then fall off the wagon, then sporadically continue, until I give up again. (Or come back to that practice a couple of weeks later.)

So, in my case at least (and I'm being honest here about my lack of self-discipline) it seems to me that there are two options, for those who obviously never learned true self-discipline, but simply learned enough to "get by". 

a.  Immersion:  Especially for any new trait, the "AA" route is useful.  Full immersion, and daily support, for the new trait you are attempting to instill - until it becomes a habit.
b. Immersion again - in a program to learn "self-discipline" as a trait, in and of itself, separate from any actual practice.
c.  Bill mentioned this once - work with one's psychology, or inner voices, to understand what inside of one's psychology is indulging in self-sabatoge of growth. 

I would criticize Stve Pavlina, actually, from presenting a "system", or a guide of how-to's, that in a lot of ways, "assumes the close".  Meaning, assumes the self-discipline already exists, with which to "improve".
The A to B straight line of self-improvement that Pavlina endorses, while sounding wonderful, glosses over the challenges to the "normal" person.  As such, is of very limited use, to effectively creating change.

From Zen Habits:

Thanks to Integral Options for the link.  Good advice for integral practice.

For myself, sporadically keep various goals.  Sometimes it is better, sometimes worse. 

That's something you don't see the Steve Pavlina's of the world talk about. 

For me, there are three versions of what to do - "what I must do", and "what I want to do that's rewarding", and "what I do that fun, but an empty time waster". 

1."Must do", includes things like going to work, cleaning up, paying bills, etc. 

2. "What I want to do" are the various integral practices that make for a fulfilling, balanced life.  Exercise, meditation, volunteering, playing my guitar, learning a language, tech study, etc.  Even better, expanding my career, finding the next opportunity, integraly study, etc.

3. "What I have fun doing that's an empty time waster" is things like browsing the internet for hours on end, playing a video game, reading a pedestrian sci-fi novel, etc.  Watch movies, comedy shows with my sweetie.

I'm not too bad at the first category on the list.  And some of the activities that would be in category 2,  I do well - I meditate regularly, and I exercise regularly.  But some of the other goals there, I do much less.

Now category 3?  3, I'm pretty good at.  If I spent as much time on category 2, as I do on category 3, wow, I'd be an accomplished guy!!    (Internet, and the tv, as wonderful as it is, is a great tool for mental masturbation).

My longterm goal is to substitute more category 2 activities, for category 3 activities.  In terms of time.

And I've done a lot on this ground -

a.  Visualized my motivations - daily
b.  Setup umpteen schedules for activities.
c.  Started a regular practice of activities - that then falls away.
d.  Attempted various, and different, structures, to do more  activities. 

Still, 3 always ends up being what i do more of. I fall of the wagon.  I get distracted (except for meditation and exercise).  I go for three days, then go three days off, or a week off.

I've probably gone on a self-improvement kick - attempting to do more of category two activities more than category three activies - more than one hundred times in my life.

It's REALLY annoying to read these self-improvement guys, such as Pavlina, who basically don't acknowledge the move towards the baseline, of human nature.

Funny enough, I'm old enough now, that I don't "beat myself up" about doing less of category 2 than category 3.  First off, lots of time I spend "doing nothing" is spent in a pretty incredible place, where the "I" slips away, and only Being is happening.

But it is also pretty clear that the inherited habits (my own childhood background, was lacking both in any form of wealth, or much actual examples of spending a lot of time in category 2), tend to dominate actual living, the activity of this body.

Which is a shame, really - as the information on "how best to live", is pretty much all over the internet.  Working with resistance, changing those habits, moving out of baseline - as Wilber has said, what ACTUALLY causes change, in a person, what ends up actually motivating a person, despite the tens of thousands of hours of research, is still a mystery.

Great post from Per at Mystery of Existence, on Big Mind and Indwelling God:


So where Big Mind is impersonal and everywhere, the indwelling God is personal and right here, in the heart space of the physical body. The experience of it, at least for me right now, is of a fragment of God for this particular individual soul and human self, and a fragment that includes and reflects the whole of God. It is not diminished in any way, yet also right here and for this particular individual.

Make sure to go read the whole post.  I'd love to see Chris at Indistinct Union comment on this as well, as he has commented on other MOE posts - and this seems right up his alley.

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.

A good case for this is made here!

A good post from Per.

Also note, his blog has changed. He is blogging from absentofi.blogspot.com.

READ THIS FIRST - before watching the video below.

One of the things that I think is very important to understand - in spite of our blogs, in spite of our intelligent minds, in spite of our wise, synthetic analysis -

Blogging - at this point - is coming from a specific band of human capability.  And this band - the intellectual, the silent awareness, the peaceful watching - is actually one of the least satisfying ways to touch the Divine.

Now - it happens to be the way that I am most comfortable with.  But there are a lot of assumptions about "how to behave" that come with this perspective - that are important to be aware of.

I spent enough time in my 20's "checking my mind at the door", that I can assert that the other ways in which we touch God - matter more to people.

The bliss-devotional aspect of the Divine, is, for most people, simply more important to the Spirit - to connection - then any amount of theorizing and satori.

When you are really INTO the bliss-devotion aspect of your SELF - at least in my own experience - the analytic portion of self is pretty "checked out".   I would say that to the analytic portion of self, the bliss-devotion aspect seems fundamentally ALIEN.

"WTF are those crazy people doing??"

But they aren't crazy, really - they are riding on a wave of bliss-devotion. 

It goes without saying that this wave of bliss-devotion is RIPE for manipulation of people - which makes it dangerous.  But it also is the juice of Spirit - and as such, needs to respected, and be accepted in the integral conversation.

I found the following on YouTube - watch it when you get a chance.  I don't know anything about this particular guru - not the history, not anything - but I can pretty much tell you, simply by the characteristics -that as silly as this guy seems to be, it most likely is the case that this guy, and a large percentage of the worshippers - are riding on a wave of bliss-devotion - where you must dance! 

Finally, a real question - if you find the following soccer behavior acceptable and fun (which I do), do you feel similarly about the below?  If not, why not?

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.

Great post from coolmel, regarding his flow of blogging - basically, he is "being blogged" by flow, rather than being a guy just blogging.

Now - is this just a function of creativity?  I posted this as a comment - that creativity is touched by God, and can flow through any type of activity - Quarterbacks have reported it while playing football, dancers have reported it while dancing, scientists have reported it, etc.

Now, is "flow", its own type of realization?  A glimpse into the realization of what already is so? Or is flow a glimpse of future human's capabilities?

I would hate to say that "blogging is spiritual practice", as clearly blogging is not physical practice.

But of course, divine creeps in everywhere - so is flow and inspiration from the self, the super-self, or the Divine?

Or all three?

Jean at the Human Bean has a pointer to the type of sychronicity and flow that Rommel speaks about - worth a read to hear Philip K. Dick speak.

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!

Here's the link from Mind Hack.

This is actually a follow-up to a previous post, about a month ago.

IF (and a big if) that for every consciousness state, there is a corresponding and measurable neurological activity - in the future, we could have "Patterns of expected activity" for the main modes of higher consciousness.

Union with God as other?  One particular pattern of brain waves
Nature mysticism?  Another pattern
Nirvakalpa samadhi?  Another pattern of brain waves.

Meditation masters (and teachers) take note - there may be "minimum standards" required for teaching meditation.  Can you achieve the accepted pattern for nirvakalpa samadhi?  Then why are you talking about it? 

Think of it - neurological proof as a necessary -but not sufficient - requirement for teaching meditation...

Update - Link fixed - thanks Vince.

Here is the link - a very good conversation, that brings up a whole host of questions.

Wilber is, in a very real way, the current modern exemplar of an evolutionary spirituality that Aurobindo in the East, first proposed.  As such, Wilber's Institute and work - like Aurobindo before him - tends towards a comprehensiveness and account of the world as it is in its form, as well as it is in it's formlessness, and towards a progress IN this world, and accounting for the various forms of this world.

Ramana Maharshi is having none of this:

"The state of Atmanishta [being fixed in the Self], devoid of the individual feeling of 'I', is the supreme state. In this state there is no room for thinking of objects, nor for this feeling of individual being. There is no doubt of any kind in this natural state of being-consciousness-bliss. So long as there is the perception of name and form in oneself, God will appear with form, but when the vision of the formless reality is achieved there will be no modifications of seer, seeing and seen. That vision is the nature of consciousness itself, non-dual and undivided. It is limitless, infinite and perfect"

Given the limited apperception - and availability to - the non-dual state - even reading Maharshi's description, elicits a change in perception for me.  A wonder seizes me - that peaceful, joyful peace arises, not attached to any object.

But there is still a WORLD that I live in, that I work in, that I have relationships in.  That impinges upon me.

Say there are 100,000 life lessons to learn, for your time here on earth. Navigating that absolute commitment to the formless- that Maharshi is a stand-in for - is only a small part of the lessons that life can teach you here on earth. 

And then the other 95,000 lessons that life has for you, in terms of giving, receiving, communicating, learning, growing - these lessons are what the "integral", and "skillful means" concepts point to.

Walking that tightrope between the two, is my own personal task.

Cross-posted at Generation Sit

Since I've posted some about meditation, it's effects, and a few days ago pointed to some research showing changes in the brain for meditation, I thought it would be worthwhile for those who have both a spiritual and research bent, to mention a good place to start regarding these investigations.

The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation, published by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, is as good a place as any to start.  You'll find a lot more references from here, to other sources and places that are continuing research now.

Michael Murphy is co-writer of this article, which makes sense to me, since as a book, The Future of The Body is as good a place as any to start as a reference book for studies on meditation, or studies of human potential in general.

The two main tomes in my library during the 90's, were SES, and The Future of the Body.

For myself, I thought for awhile that I would have loved to get paid to do the type of research that is investigated by the Institute of Noetic Sciences.  I entertained getting a PhD there, but I couldn't imagine being on the hook for 80K to 100K at the end of it.

For the spiritual research crowd, is there another comprehensive reference work that is just as important? 

Let me know! 

Also, this TYPE of research, or at least the analysis and recommendation of this type of research, can be forwarded by the blogosphere.  We are starting to do some of this with IntegralWiki, and the framework of Michael Bauwens. 

But, it goes slowly, since the demands of life interfere.

Now that Google Base has been release, it's time to talk about how Google Base can contribute to the open source accumulation of spiritual realization.  This builds on yesterday's post, about data collection to evaluate and build models of behavior and practice which can be confirmed or disconfirmed.

Take a look at Google Base, for the moment.  I'll have much more to say later. 

Vince has begun the reflection on his 6 week retreat, with his first installment. 

Definitely go check it out!

First this one at Indistinct Union. 

It's pretty hard to bring a holistic and spiritually informed view to subjects like "outsourceing", but CJ has a go of it.

Second, the Human Bean points me to the Ken Wilber's Towards A Comprehensive Theory of Subtle Energies.

What I like about this article are the diagrams.  But I really wish that Wilber would get better at sourcing some of the major work that has been done in this area.  

For example, as "new-agey" as it may be, there's quite a lot of work on subtle energies done by Barbara Brennan.  As a former NASA physicist, she is very aware of the the empirical methodology as well.

Please feel free to correct me, but at this moment I can't think of anytime Wilber has referenced this.

(By the by, does Wilber employ a stable of research assistants?  Even if he would "outsource" this to India, I would think the comprehensive nature of "The Theory of Everything" would require fact-checkers and research assistants...)