With Ken's latest misfortune (and godspeed, with all my prayers to Ken!), as well, as the documentation of the trials and tribulations of Integral Institute, it seems clear to me that, we are going to need to take it in hand ourselves to create various city centers ourselves - in as full transparency as we can.

Some background -

1.  First off, we had the news about Ken Wilber's health. 
2.  Then, we have had the detailing of the inner workings of I-I - the bumps and challenges of any new startup, as detailed by Steve Frazee.
3. Then there was this good post at Naked Reflections, regarding what the integral community would do, if something happened to Ken Wilber  (God willing, a long, long, time from now).
4. And then, this good post by Gary Stamper, regarding integral questions and developing integral community and intitutions.

So there is a lot happening, in the blog conversations, around integral community.  (In the virtual world, of course!)  (And, I would like to add, the best PERSONAL RESPONSE to be with these happenings, is to view them as challenges, and let the best way to respond to those challenges, percolate up inside of you.  Actions WILL suggest themselves to you.  As Hokai has said, "It's up to us".  Or, as the common expression goes, "Be the change you wish to see in the world".

This has caused me to begin to ruminate - what would a community of integral salons - really, Integral Community Centers - what type of character would they have?

I see it the following way:

An Integral Community Center, in an "ideal world" (not that this world exists) is basically a combination of the following three institutions:

A church
A wellness center
A university

"A church", because people gather together for practice, bonding, prayer, meditation, etc.   This also engages the spirit of giving, so important to the sense of selflessness.

A wellness center, I think is obvious - So much of integral is being "whole" - both physical, emotional, psychological, interpersonal health.  And all the assessments associated.

A University - this is the study and research part of Integral. Many think that I-I should have been this type of research institute, without expanding into "doing it all", but I understand the impulse.  People also wish to "practice", right?  (That's my goal at least!)

So, there are two ways to do this - build on existing church/wellness center/university's, or bum-rush local community spaces to provide a context to exercise these components.

In a sense, there are a few successful models for this - one is, I would think, something like Naropa University (you Naropiate/Naropeans correct me if I am wrong).  Here you already have a dedicated areas for spiritual practice (hopefully) a wellness center, including a gym, and the resources for research are present by being, well, a university!

I think this is similar for various theological colleges as well, catholic, episcopalian and the like.  Maybe Chris can speak up on this.

I've mentioned this before - but the ideal situation, at least for me, is to have an Integral Community Center (ICC) that acts in a very similar style to the Jewish Community Center (JCC). 

Who agrees with using the JCC as a model, as the ideal mode of integral-in-the-community? 

Now, that idealized vision founders on the rocks of a couple of hard truths -

a. Integral, at this point, is interesting in and of itself, to only a small subset of people.
b. The practices, beliefs, creeds, credos, principals, of integral-in-community, have yet to be established.  And in the real world, these must be established.  (See here for UU's history, and read here about UU's Principles and Purposes).  As an example, there is still a fairly large disagreement about "first-tier" versus 2nd tier.

Contra to Gary and Joe Perez, I still have significant issues with making this separation between "1st tier" and "2nd tier".  The main difficulty being that labeling of a person - or even a point of view - "1st tier", can be true, but also can be a signficant defense mechanism for a person/organization, and is one of the insidious ways that a "groupthink" can become rigid, thus created the "us versus them", "evil versus good", "2nd tier (good) versus 1st tier (bad)".  

I'm not sure the gain is worth the danger.

So, practically, what does that mean for action paths?

a.  Use an existing church, university, center, and develop a "sub-community". 
b.  Bootstrap through homes.

BEFORE that is even done though, there MUST be a social container.  And this must start from foundation principles/practices.  Otherwise, what you get is, vagueness and friendly people, gathering around for meandering conversations.

The foundational practices, at this point, is the "Module" concept.  Are there also "foundational" lesson plans?

 I'm sure some of the more experienced groups have some insight in this regard.

This post has been long - but any feedback would be appreciated.