The new post of KW's is interesting, both for what it says, and what it implies.

The content of the post is very good, particularly the various self-awareness injunctions in the post - I'll quote some - bear in mind I'm picking and choosing my quotes, so you may be better served reading the original material, then coming back:

“Let the next sentence out of your mouth be integral or second tier.”

The point here is that, even if you are afraid that your center of gravity is orange or green, you can still think turquoise, you can still talk turquoise, you can still light up turquoise, and the Road Rules help you respond integrally by helping you talk turquoise. The more your talk is second tier, the sooner your walk will be.

It is a good a very good injunction - similar to "be your highest self" - but the only issue is who decides what is 2nd tier, what isn't?  I understand that to Ken this is obvious - but as 2nd tier-1st tier is clearly contextual  - [note to self: why is it when I curse, I'm being an asshole, when Ken says it, he's freeing people from their shadow, as well as illuminating your highest self, as well as creating a self-aware version of high blogart? - you have to admit, the jokes DO write themselves...], it may be a good idea to delineate in a neutral manner what 2nd tier consists of.

“Any time that you are not sure whether you are being integral or not, turquoise or not, second tier or not, then feel the thinker; be aware of the thinker.”

I love this injunction - and this shows the presence in Ken of awareness beyond the thinker, with this clarity.  In meditation this happens frequently, if not always - the "thinker" can be felt, as an object - not the Self, not what is so.  An object, not a subject.  As such, it is a good tool for making the mind transparent.

“Are there any of my shadow elements in any of my sentences or posts?”

I'm not so sure of this one - as Ryan says, most of the time - if not all of the time - the answer is going to be "yes". 

Does this mean you do not go forward with the perspective that IS present now?  The truth of this moment IS your perspective now, even if there are shadow elements.  Most of the time, I would say - yes - go forward.  Just be open to your errors, and be willing to be- and admit you are partially/mostly/all wrong.

Now, what is hinted at, implied in this post, is that the forums are going to be "watched", because I-I is an "...attempt to provide authentic commons spaces, not those clogged with shadow elements"

But at the same time, Wilber says to not go "shadow-hunting", and hopefully the refraining from shadow hunting goes both ways - from the staff and the participants. If you look at the experience of Daily Kos - where the injunction is "don't be a troll", the hunting part, can get seriously out of whack.  Go read this post at Daily Kos though, especially the "major types of trolls", or troll typology.  I'm sure some creative/humorous mind will come up with "shadow typologies" over at the IN Forums soon!

We'll have to see the direction this takes, if any.

Lastly - this metacommentary , or at least the implication is - "these are the rules for I-I going forward".  I'm not sure it is best to included a "teaching lesson" with rules, as it simply distorts the fact that you are laying down the rules of the place.  I'd rather clear and consistent rules simply be posted. But, I may be reading too much into this - because this is an favorable interpretation, so don't take this last observation too seriously.

Corey announces this on KW's blog