Thanks for helping to get the conversation going. I didn't say that I-I "owns" the term integral. But if Ken Wilber and his organization aren't the authority on integral/AQAL, who is?

Let's face it, K-dub is currently doing the defining. And his terminology is precise. My opinion is there isn't anybody better suited to be the authority than Ken and I-I.

I also definitely dig the democracy of independently operated wikis. But I still want to see I-I take charge and provide a framework for the public to co-create an integral/aqal wiki. IMHO, It adds expertise and trust. Most people that I talk to about aqal get so much wrong that I can't trust them to do the job of defining integral/aqal. We need quality control.

This is why I like the Creative Commons license. The ideas can't be copyrighted. So to help spread the information, a CC 2.5 would help bloggers like you and me share and develop the information while protecting I-I as an organization that needs to pay its employees. I think they need to get hip :)

Yes, these are good points.

I guess what I am saying is that, for example, even though Microsoft is on 95% of desktops, they essentially aren't "the desktop market", because there is this other 5 percent. While you are completely right, in that 95% of the "market" of integral is I-I, there is other work going on, and I am interested in that as well.

Now that 5% of the small percentage of people who are interested in integral, is then vanishingly small, that is true. But there is still good work being done outside of I-I. Especially when you consider that I-I is "parasitic" in a sense, on other people's groups and research.