It's 12 o'clock here in Honolulu, Hawaii, and I'm overlooking the beach, out on the balcony, of a hotel room in Waikiki. 

Yes, I'm on vacation!  It's also Amy's birthday, so since she reallly has wanted to go to Hawaiii for a long time, we have come here.  Arrived today, and will be around for a week.

I've always been a water boy - lots of water sports - so it is great to get back to be immersed, surrounded, by water. 

Waikiki seems like the "busy" part of Hawaii - I can still see many people out walking near the beach, and we are a few blocks away from the shopping area.

But still, just being at the water, swimming at the beach for a couple of hours today, and simply having the beach across from my hotel room - therse are things to be grateful for.

and simply give them a bit more class?

6,786 miles per gallon. 

It's simply VERY hard to believe that countries couldn't embark on a massive program to force this type of technology to market.

From Umguy at Ideological Putty, and from Sean at Deep Surface.

Both are useful posts, in that they point out the conflation between 1st person and 3rd person points of views.

Still  - as Sean points out - there is something very attractive in Pavlina's second post about subjective reality, around how he describes intention:

Essentially, you don’t do anything aside from put out intentions and then watch them manifest.  Your body’s role is to be a vehicle for manifesting.  It’s as if your body no longer has free will because your consciousness is no longer centered there.  You cease to identify with your body.  Your free will comes from your connection to higher consciousness and your ability to create and hold intentions.

Imagine you put out some intentions while in a state of God-consciousness.  Partly you’ll see changes in the physical universe occurring, but you’ll also witness your physical body taking actions to carry out those intentions.  The body and its actions become things you observe rather than things you identify with.

So if you put out an intention, you might observe your physical body doing writing or other work… almost on autopilot.  But even as you watch the body perform these actions, you don’t identify with it.  That body is not the real you — it is simply a vehicle for manifesting in the physical universe

This is also what Jay is attempting to focus on - the connecting tissue between the subjeective, non-dual self, and how the power of creativity manifests in a person's life.

This creative self - I would say that Ken Wilber identifies as the centaur self.

I believe that Steve Pavlina, may take for granted his own personal mastery here, and so have no need to center his experience in a "philosophy", because he is practically minded - people who have such mastery, with good and balanced development of the earlier psychological needs, will naturally begin to expand into the centauric realm - creating exciting vistas of meaning, passion, and NOVELTY into the world.

In the main popular culture at large.

I want to thank everyone for contributing their well thought out comments for yesterday's post.  I attempted to approach the post with a seriousness befitting the topic.  I will follow up with everyone in the next couple of days.

I'd like to extend this line of thought for a bit, taking it to a new place - and in doing so, I have some questions. 

~C4Chaos pointed me to this blog post by Jake, over at Zaadz. called About Spiritual Teachers.

It's a good post.  I would add one thing however.

The spiritual relationship with a teacher, is not like the relationship with, say, your basketball coach. 

Like therapy - it's a relationship of deep vulnerability for the students, and also a very unequal power dynamic.

And as such, shouldn't the Code of Ethics that are "signed off on" by teachers be similar to the Code of Ethics signed off on by therapists?

Most organizations have some type of Code of Ethics.  And when complaints arise about signers to the code of ethics, there exists a body to INVESTIGATE the complaints - separate from any type of legal action.  And the signees to the code of ethics, have a pre-agreement to accede to this type of investigation.

Take a look at this American Association of Pastoral Counselors Code of Ethics.  A large bit here:

PRINCIPLE III - CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS

It is the responsibility of members of AAPC to maintain relationships with clients on a professional basis.

   1. We do not abandon or neglect clients. If we are unable, or unwilling for appropriate reasons, to provide professional help or continue a professional relationship, every reasonable effort is made to arrange for continuation of treatment with another professional.

   2. We make only realistic statements regarding the pastoral counseling process and its outcome.

   3. We show sensitive regard for the moral, social, and religious standards of clients and communities. We avoid imposing our beliefs on others, although we may express them when appropriate in the pastoral counseling process.

   4. Counseling relationships are continued only so long as it is reasonably clear that the clients are benefiting from the relationship.

   5. We recognize the trust placed in and unique power of the therapeutic relationship. While acknowledging the complexity of some pastoral relationships, we avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients. We avoid those dual relationships with clients (e.g., business or close personal relationships) which could impair our professional judgement, compromise the integrity of the treatment, and/or use the relationship for our own gain.

   6. We do not engage in harassment, abusive words or actions, or exploitative coercion of clients or former clients.

   7. All forms of sexual behavior or harassment with clients are unethical, even when a client invites or consents to such behavior or involvement. Sexual behavior is defined as, but not limited to, all forms of overt and covert seductive speech, gestures, and behavior as well as physical contact of a sexual nature; harassment is defined as but not limited to, repeated comments, gestures or physical contacts of a sexual nature.

   8. We recognize that the therapist/client relationship involves a power imbalance, the residual effects of which are operative following the termination of the therapy relationship. Therefore, all sexual behavior or harassment as defined in Principle III, G with former clients is unethical.

Especially look at 5 and 6 above. 

"We recognize the trust placed in and unique power of the therapeutic relationship"
"We do not engage in harassment, abusive words or actions, or exploitative coercion of clients or former clients."

This is completely pie in the sky - so feel free to mock me here! -  that organizations that I would like to be associated with - like, say Integral Institute - would be willing to sign some  adapted form of a Code of Ethics, on behalf of the organization.  And, pushing it further, would associate in the main, only with other organizations that ALSO would have adopted a formal Code of Ethics, with an assent to have an investigating body - again, separate from legal investigations.   (And note - there is nothing regarding a code of behavior or a code of ethics that I can find on the website of Integral Institute, regarding relationships among people at the institute, or relationships with other organizations.)

Now, would this prevent abuse?  Of course not - but at least it would put a mechanism in place, whereby there is some accountability.  And then ticking ethical timebombs, like say Marc Gafni situation (where there were previous accusations that, sadly, ended up being accurate) or the Andrew Cohen situation, end up tainting the organization that I do want to be part of, and that I do care about.

The above is most likely completely unrealistic, but I thought I would throw it out there.  As Tuff Ghost said in comments to the previous post:

"Wilber is in a position of power in regards to teacher endorsements".  (Please go back and read the comment, its a good one).

As well, I've had personal email communication from a couple of folks, who haven't been willing to engage more with Integral Institute because of the "taint" of these type of associations.

And that's a shame, I think.

I would like to follow up on the question of associations.  between organizations and individuals.

This is going to be a serious post, and, hopefully, more thought out than some of the quicker posts that I have done this week.

In a way, this is a response to ~C4Chaos, but also, in a way I am simply reflecting on the question of how to handle and respond to questionable associations.

I'm going to be looking at various perspectives here, and following them through.
this will be a long post, so please bear with me.

First off, let's start with rommel's position:

Having said that, here's my personal opinion of Andrew. I don't resonate with his teachings, his teaching style, and even with his well-trimmed mustache. But that doesn't mean that his teachings are uncool. I'm not in a position to make a judgement on that because I didn't delve deeply enough into Andrew's organizations and theoretical teachings. I read some of his books and he has some cool things to say. But still, like I said, I don't resonate with the dude.

However, I've been reading WIE Magazine for a long time now and that magazine kicks spiritual ass! I should remind you again, ebuddha, that although Andrew is the head guy of that magazine, the features there are collective efforts (writers, guests, etc...). WIE is the best spiritual magazine in my book because of the SPAN and DEPTH of its coverage. Sure there are Andrew propagandas in the magazine (what magazine hasn't?) but it's up to the readers to take them in or not. I choose to take in the "good" ones, and choose to ignore those things that I don't resonate with.

I believe this is the normal perspective.   And it is a very valid one.  But I don't think it is the ONLY valid perspective for this situation.

There is some history, and some examples, of how people have acted, when there is some  association with unsavory characters or organizations.  Some examples -

Politicians will choose not to associate themselves or their organizations with other people, or organizations, that have a checkered or controversial past.  Look at the recent furor over John McCain and Liberty University.

Other examples would be, say refusing to do business with those businesses that have unethical practices, or are run by unethical people.  A lot of this happened in South Africa, back during apartheid (of course that is on a much much larger scale.)

This "right of refusal" to support a person, or the organizations that this person runs, has a long, sometimes noble, sometimes not, history.

Even with the current sad situation with Gafni, there has been a right and proper refusal of the organization, which has DISSASOCIATED themselves with Gafni.  If various Jewish organizations were NOT to dissociate themselves with Gafni, at this point, there would be an outcry.  For example - if Bayit Chadesh were to continue with Marc Gafni in a "founding" role - I think many people would begin to have an issue with Bayit Chadesh.

And that issue would be there - no matter how many other wonderful things Bayit Chadesh had done.  Or, in Rommel's words - even if Bayit Chadesh had "tremendous depth and span".  There would be a leak in that otherwise good work.

Now, of course, it must be emphasized - every situation is different. One can't make this a sliding slope.  The ethics involved will depend, both on the person, and on the situation.  Because really - we are all connected, and if you play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, well - you get to everybody really really fast.

From what I can see, regarding the Gafni situation, Wilber has handled it pretty well.  Not perfectly, but still, in the upper 80 percentile.  So I'm absolutely okay with that.

But what is the situation regarding Andrew Cohen, and What Is Enlightenment?

1.  First off, there are still many allegations against Andrew Cohen - which, since they have never been addressed BY Andrew and his organization, especially after all this time - common sense would tell you that a lot of these allegations are true.  Certainly there hasn't been denials.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and point me to denials.)
2. Andrew Cohen is the founder and Executive Editor of What Is Enlightenment.  He is the controller of this organization, and I believe, the rest of the staff are his followers  - they aren't independent staff.
3. Andrew Cohen's face, announcements about his teachings, etc, are plastered all over What Is Enlightenment website.  Seriously - all over.

So what we are looking at here, is an ONGOING situation - with no admitting of wrongdoing, no expiation, no resolution with those hurt - and the magazine founded, and directed by this person. 

This situation with Andrew Cohen and What Is Enlightenment, is already PAST the situation with Bayit Chadesh and Gafni, isn't it?  While there would be an amazing amount of distrust, if Bayit Chadesh continued to act with Gafni as teacher and role model - again, no matter how much good Bayit Chadesh may be doing for its community - why is it suddenly "mean green" to point out that ANOTHER organization - in this case, the magazine - is - more than associated - CONTROLLED by an unsavory character? As well as the main mode of profit for this character?

It seems to me that it is as much of a VALID perspective to recommend people away from the magazine, because of who the magazine is controlled by - as it is a valid perspective to point out that the magazine has amazing articles, and does some really good stuff.

In this case, both are true.

Lastly - I think what is papered over many times - is just how - even though, of course, abusive gurus happen all the time, as abusive parents happen all the time - this type of betrayal - spiritual abuse - is one of more profound types of betrayals that an adult can go through.  And this betrayal can "stick around" psychologically for over a decade, and sometimes over the course of one's life.

Kate left a comment on my previous post on this, recounting beautifully her near-avoidance of a bad situation in a spiritual organization.  It's a beautiful read, if you have the time, and I recommend you read it, then come back. 

What I would highlight, and this has been my experience as well - is just how vulnerable - for good and ill - a person is in their spiritual relationships.  For me at least, I feel the freshness of Kate's post - and for her, it's been years and years later.

So - this is only one man's perspective - but the following is mine. 

a.  Andrew Cohen has shown himself, through many different sources, to be a very abusive spiritual teacher.  And there has been no change, no resolution of the source and methods used by Andrew Cohen, from what I gather.
b. What Is Enlightenment was founded - and is controlled - by Andrew Cohen.  That is a reality, no matter how good the articles by the magazine are.  And yes, they are very, very good.
c. My perspective is - that What Is Enlightenment magazine should dissociate themselves completely from Andrew Cohen.  Of course, the above will never happen, because of "b" above.
d. Any relationship between What Is Enlightenment magazine, and other organizations/teachers, taints those organizations and teachers.  The same way that for Bayit Chadesh would be tainting their organization by not removing Marc Gafni, from their organization (at least for now.)


 I do believe that the perspective above is a valid perspective, while at the same time recognizing that there is room for disagreement.  I do not however, think that this can be solely explained away by "mean green meme" or "projection" or a "lack of critical thinking".  Both are Rommel quotes from his post, of my perspective, however.  Of course, as I said earlier, I was writing quickly in earlier posts, and so he is responding to how quickly I wrote those preceding posts.  If I have this wrong, I will be MORE than happy to update.

I also recognize that Rommel's perspective - quoted above and in italics - is again, the normal, and valid perspective. 

In my opinion however, that perspective does paper over some valid ethical concerns.  And yes, I would WISH that people would adopt my perspective - who wouldn't?  But I am well aware of the reality that this won't happen.

If you have read this far - I appreciate it!  And keep in mind, I consider myself to be wrong quite a lot, and I may be wrong here.  But I will tell speak my perspective, in the hopes of greater clarity.

Peace.

I don't know who might have read this post on Subjective Reality by Steve Pavlina.

It is an interesting mix between the non-dual perspective, and the New Age perspective - (I'm specifically thinking about Seth type of material.)

Certainly, the description of the subjective is pure advaita.

 Simply read any of Ramesh Balsekar's works, and the similarity is quite apparent.

Or perhaps, this is closer to A Course In Miracles outlook.

Where the digression begins to occur, is the entry of what I would call "co-creation".  Here is a section of Pavlina's Q&A:

Question:  So if I were to believe in something that didn’t exist or that wasn’t possible yet, it would actually begin to manifest in the physical universe?

Answer: Yes, it would.  The physical universe is a summation of thought.  So first of all, in order to change this universe, you must adopt the belief that creation by thought is possible.  You must not only believe it.  You must know it.

If you try to create by thought, yet deep down you still believe it’s impossible or highly improbable, then it will not manifest for you.  The physical universe, including time and space, can only manifest in a manner that is congruent with your beliefs.

So here now an INDIVIDUAL belief will begin to have an affect on the OUTER subjective world experienced.  Beliefs are the mediating entity between the true subjective self and the normal objective self.

This is as opposed to the advaita view - that the experienced outer world - the normal world of form - is actually the subjective's dream - Brahma's dream - and not "your" dream.  "Not MY will, but THINE."  And implicit in this, is the surrender to God, the subjective, WHAT IS, rather than an attempt at manipulation through  "belief changing".

But again, it isn't JUST that simple as that because - guess what?  Each individual is blessed with a "creative self", and an ability to affect the world, at least on a social level. 

So Pavlina's version of Subjective Reality for the "world" and how to affect that world, is a bit different from - say, the "two truths" doctrine.

Or, the more sophisticated version of the Two Truths doctrine promoted by Ken Wilber, that is Integral Theory.


I could say more on this, but I would like others feedback as well.  Any thoughts?  Post and trackback on your blogs and I'll link and discuss, or comment here, if you feel so inclined.

A pretty decent introduction

If I meditate, at least.

Maybe it's just me - but after awhile, while doing the Big Mind Process, that old bugaboo resistance chimes, in, and my "inner sarcastic bastard" - maybe the controller? - just takes over the whole show.

Here's what I mean -

With great passion and great vigor, I engage in the Big Mind process. 

Question:  "How big is my mind?"

Answer"  "I don't know how big, but however big it is, your mind is pretty dumb".

I move my body, and shift to the seeking mind:

Question:  "What does the seeking mind have to say"?
Answer:  "Where did I put my car keys?"

I then move my body, and shift to the non-seeking mind:

Question:  "What does the non-seeking mind have to say"?
Answer:  "[Insert appropriate television jingle like "Martin and Rossi on the rocks say YES"].

Jingles figure a lot in these answers.

I then move my body, and shift to Big Heart

Question:  "What does Big Heart have to say"?
Answer:  "Hava nagila, hava nagila
Hava nagila venis'mecha!"

Question:  "What does Big Mind have to say?"
Answer:  "I've already told you, schmuck.  There's nothing to do, nothing to say, just be.  End of discusssion. Would you GET IT already?"

Apparently, people are having issues leaving comments on my site here.  I need to look into this. 

At any rate, I need to walk back on a bit of hyperbole - I received an email which pointed out that Cohen has very little interaction with Integral Institute.  Basically, there have been a few public talks with Ken, and that's about it.

And the truth is, over the last year, there hasn't been much interaction with Andrew Cohen, at IN.  There has been some, but not much. 

I guess what is brought up here - and again, I think the second post of VC's threads the needle between an "unthinking condemnation", and a "what's really going on here" authentic analysis, very well.

As most people who read here probably know, Marc Gafni - a frequent teacher hosted at Integral Institute - has had sexual misconduct charges filed against him by three women.

Vomiting Confetti, has the best take on this.

There have been responses by Wilber - follow the link above, Bill at Integral Options, Matthew Dallman, and then Vomitting Confetti again (probably more that I don't know of).

Since I care here about Integral Institute, my thoughts are below.

I think Bill is too easy on Wilber, while VC's take is similar to mine.

Mainly, Ken is creating a false equivalence, equating the condemnation to "mean green".  I hardly thing the jewish groups in question are "mean green", yes?

Ken writes:

"Nonetheless, there is some truth to these allegations because of grave wrongdoing on Marc’s part, and I believe this wrongdoing is due not just to bad judgment on Marc’s part, but to a pathology or dysfunction affecting Marc".

I don't know what to make of that sentence - "confused" at best. If you have a pathology or dysfunction, then this does have a relation to judgement - not a one to one correspondence, but a relation, yes?

However, remember, this is a PERSONAL FRIEND of Ken's.  The last thing you do as a personal friend is to throw your friend under the bus, right? 

So while I understand why Ken is not doing that, his statement so far, in my opinion, is underwhelming and unsatisfying. 

And this brings up Andrew Cohen again, who is STILL roaming the halls of Integral Institute, with apparent impunity.

The broader question is, what is Ken's personal failing that he seems to have a pattern of spiritual teachers with significant moral flaws?  (Da Free John, Andrew Cohen, Marc Gafni, etc.)

And why is this somehow acceptable?  Should it be? 

Rommel, who of course is THE best of those who are nominally "integral" bloggers - he also falls for this, in that he separates out What Is Enlightenment, from Andrew Cohen, in that one doesn't affect the other.

I'd like others opinions, actually.  Is this a valid separation?  Given that there is SO MUCH stuff about Cohen out there, why do people ignore this as it relates to What Is Enlightenment?

Or am I simply being "mean green" myself? 

What is your opinion? 

Actually, it looks as if C4 was going over the same territory yesterday, from a slightly different perspective. 

Worth reading.

If I am reading this right - it looks as if he has been HIRED by Zaadz!!

That is amazing! 

And sincerely - if a few of the features I've been pining for now forever, in a community site, get enacted - well, then I'll start spending all my time there!

I can only shake my head at some of the issues in the greater political sphere today. 

NSA has collected tens of millions of phone records.

Bush challenged hundreds of laws

Not to mention the various stories of politization of policy, based on ideology.

Now, despite what is happening out in the wide world, bringing oneself, BACK to center, back to breathing, back to silence - the day is beautiful, this moment - and this moment, and this moment, are experienced as Perfect.

So - what's the correct response, if anything, to stories such as this?  

Category error, is the biggest issue here, for a spiritual person.  What is God's, what is the world's?  What is the spiritual and integral response, if anything?

Okay, well, I need to revisit the other's days post regarding comments, because I received - guess what - some constructive comments!!

First off, I came on rather stronger than I intended, - and The Pagan Bodhisattva picked up on this -  so it doesn't seem that my "histrionics with a wink and a smile" came across correctly in the previous post.  So, yes, partly I was definitely kidding.  The last link pointing to the meta-confusing-nature of cross-cross-cross posts, was supposed to be the tip-off, but I may have been too obscure for my own good. (Imagine that!)

Secondly, Graham English - one of THE blogs to go to for learning more about NLP - pointed out that Steve Pavlina at least, had explained why he had turned off comments. 

Steve Pavlina's REASONS, are actually interesting.   His reasons are:

a. Time investment in managing comments
For me, this makes a lot of sense - it DOES take quite a lot of time to manage and interact with comments - and it is totally valid that there are opportunity cost for doing so - and since much of the world does NOT happen when blogging - to paraphrase John Lennon - "life is what happens to you when you are busy blogging" - well, who can argue?

b. But the other reason is really interesting, and highlights an important issue, so I will exaggerate the reason here, for effect. What I would boil it down to is that Pavlina is saying that basically, people are idiots.  Which is funny, because my exact comment was " ignore the hoi polloi common man who deigns to comment on my blog."
Now, why do I say that about Pavlina?  here's his reasons listed -
" -Partly this is because I want to maintain certain standards of quality"
"- Does it [criticism] do myself or anyone else any good?"
"-A good portion of criticism is simply the other person projecting"
"-there’s invariably an explosion of juvenile comments"
"-As this is intended to be a site “for smart people” who take personal development seriously, I think having too many comments like those weakens the site overall"

Let me know what you think, but - when I look at this - you can clearly see - as subtext - a certain bit of superiority running through this? 

The thing is though - he's RIGHT.  We all know that opening comments can lead to trolls, can lead to stupid blogfights, can lead to various other things that are negative.  The signal-to-noise ratio is HIGH in the blogworld. 

For me, because I have this idealized conception of a peer-to-peer structure - and blogs with comments, and then community blog sites, fall into this realm - I think it's worth it. 

I still find it fascinating however, that the main spiritual and self-improvement sites, don't allow this type of peer-to-peer functionality, and most likely for the same reasons that Pavlina does not.

Related - score a win for non peer-to-peer spiritual sites, and What Is Enlightenment won the Webby in the Religion and Spirituality category.  Good design and good content will beat naive amorphous peer to peer every time - even if the founder is a doofus.  (I blame C4Chaos endorsement - never under the power of C4!)

In other news - Matthew Dallman has initiated comments, and I'm glad for it.  He is debating the same type of issues.

At any rate - comments.  Sound and fury signifying nothing?  Are the personal growth "heavies" justifiably superior, in a "read the f**king manual, and listening to what I'm saying" way? 


Lastly, who are the spiritual/personal growth leaders out there, who enthusiastically embrace peer-to-peer in their online sites, despite the sound and fury, where maybe 60% of the noise signals not too much? 

So what's up with the Ken Wilber blog not allowing comments? 

Same thing with Steve Pavlina.

Same thing with a lot of various other teachers, actually.

So - it's one of two things - and yes, ONLY two things are possible.

a.  Only idiots comment on blogs - ignore the hoi polloi common man who deigns to comment on my blog.  It's the new version of "wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me", in that "I don't need to listen to anyone that would actually appreciate my help".
b.  Control - exercising TIGHT control is a way to make sure that the message gets out EXACTLY the way you want it to get out.  And thus some of the whole purpose of the medium (blogs) is ignored. in that the connectivity, intimacy-at-a-distance, regularity, aren't explored.

So why are so many "empowerment" guys so afraid of  those who wish to be "helped" or "empowered" with their personal betterment assistance?

Are the self-help guys opinion of the "seekers and improvement junkies" (us, really) that low?  "Hey, any losers who are interested in reading what I have to say, certainly can't be allowed to comment on it...."  

Never has the population of "helpers" and "experts" been so contempuous of the "helped"!

In a way, this is very similar to the current conflict between the "paid press" who have paid their dues, and the insurgent bloggers everywhere, not afraid to challenge/speak their mind to those same press.

This "flattening" of the nature of opinion - and who's opinion is valuable, who's isn't, is interesting, when it hits the spiritual and self-help world.

But I want to be wrong here - so I have a "blog beg", or "bleg" - what is a GOOD reason for a self-help/spiritual blog NOT to allow comments?  Other than (what I consider negative) reasons of control, low opinion of the masses, and arrogance?

Actually, when I think about it, I can imagine our self-help gurus might want to avoid fun posts like this.

But that's not a good enough reason! 

I saw this post at Integral Options today, about money, sex, power, and believing you are free of them.

I pretty much agree with what is being said, in the sense of having enough money to "mostly not worry about money". 

Now, there are many ways to "achieve" this.  Being "disciplined" about money, is one of the best ways.  Always put away at least 10% of your income. Don't spend frivolously. 

I know people who make 100 K per year, who are still living paycheck to paycheck.  Not because they are horrible overspenders, but because they wanted a decent place in Marin or San Francisco! (Note - another rule - don't buy property in San Francisco!) 

This is a very useful motivation in terms of staving off survival anxiety, in terms of learning discipline in "inputs" and "outputs".  Jobs themselves are very useful in terms of growing and developing skills. 

But is this still a matter of being bound, or simply a matter of common sense, this desire for "freedom from" money?

I saw that Matthew has a post up about Colbert at the White House Correspondence Dinner - basically saying, that Colbert wasn't funny.

Well, for what is is worth - I certain found his monologue funny.  Although I must agree that the video segment with Helen Thomas wasn't good. 

I wonder though, what people were expecting.  The thing about Colbert is, the shtick is an acquired taste.  The first couple of times I watched Colbert, I was - "eh, it's okay."  But by the 5th time (I've probably caught about 10 shows since he started), to me at least, he kept getting funnier and funnier, "growing on me" as they say.

And his act at the WHCD - you have to say, it was completely in keeping with his act on his show.  In fact, a few of the jokes that people are calling "rude" were recycled. 

So, I'm wondering more, what the people who booked the show were thinking.  Colbert did his thing, the thing that he always does on The Colbert Report - he just did it with Bush 20 feet away from him, and the Washington Press Corps looking on. 
But that wasn't out of character - not in the least - with what he ALWAYS does. 

To expect him to do something different than what he was hired to do, is unrealistic. 

Of course, this is really such a small matter in the larger scheme of things.  It's interesting only in the way that - with the same material - people can experience it different ways.


Now, for an integral discussion -

From Dave Pollard.



I hope for something like this for spiritual subjects, as well as other expertise.  But this is the ultimate Skillful Means project, with a peer to peer overlay.  The only additional proposal I would add, is to add a "satisfaction report", similar to the 360 degree assessment model. 

At this point, the online community I want has the following elements:

a. Personal blogging - text/audio/video.  Ability for community to rate posts.
b. Personal Profiles
c. Rating of blogging/expertise
d. Events scheduling
e. Feedback mechanism, on events, practices, experts.

You can pretty much get all of the above, expect feedback, through SCOOP, and maybe a couple of blogging platforms.

What are others insights on this?

A cool looking program from the BBC on Happiness. 

Good links from the Mind Hacks site, and a test on Happiness is linked to!

In terms of online video.

Over the past few months, my "video watching" habits have COMPLETELY changed.  (In fact, I was flipping between Google Reader and YouTube when I saw Rommel's original post.)

Oh, and while I agree with the recommendations of Satriani and Stevie Ray Vaughn, for Guitar blues, I've always been pretty partial to Johnny Winter.  Not quite as talented, but guitar is all this "white-haired freak" ever really did.  This is a great rendition of Highway 61.

And of course, for some GREAT guitar, well, I give you Al Di Meola and Paco De Lucia.

These guys are GODS.  Especially wait for Paco around minute 3:30 to 4:00.

Everyone who reads this blog probably knows all about the Ken Wilber website redesign.

My own initial thoughts -

a.  It's an improvement over the last site, in terms of easy access to stuff - (blog, writings, audio-video, etc).
b. Coolmel is blogging!  (or C4Chaos? when I use that name, still don't like the moniker - but then again, glass houses and such - I mean- ebuddha??)
c. There is more in-site interactivity.  Some of the old site (still somewhat accessible through personal) was visually nice but harder to navigate. This site is easier.
d. The "personality" of the site is always interesting, and I wonder to what degree it reflects the personality of Wilber, in that both the old and new sites - as well as Integral Naked to a degree:
    i)  are very slick froma presentation standpoint
    ii) Have a tendency towards peculiar color choices - trying for the "futuristic", but occasionally coming across as grandiose. 
    iii) Are very 'one-directional'. 

Interestingly enough, Ken Wilber's work is sometimes that way as well!

From VC, he tells us that Frank Visser has a blog.

Good - it always seemed to me that Visser has been a fairly objective investigator of the Wilber Work.

It will be interesting to see where his blog goes, and what types of thoughts he shares.