Feeling the Truth of The Message

I have to agree with you Mike. As someone who came to the intellectual approaches to finding ‘self’ or ‘truth’ from the other direction, meaning, I had already come to deep conclusions from experience, such that I felt no inclination to attempt rationalising God, when I encountered the integral debates I was like, gosh, this is exhausting.

It also seemed inconclusive for most persons. I never detected a satisfaction with the inspection and the findings, such that people could take off and now soar with new knowledge. I had another interesting education in Western societal approaches, in this case, where intellect and its prowess had become a very important part of all life as ‘we’ know it; I daresay critical part, for status especially I should add. Strip the significance of being an intellectual away from society and this particular approach might not have gained attention whatsoever! I assure you, in my country and my [developing] world where we haven’t got even close to that level of academic immersion in society, it is much more simple to come [back] to Source. It’s tremendous how easy. I am pleasantly surprised actually.

The fact that integral theory etc. has led to its own brand of elitism is an indication that it hasn’t quite hit the nail on its head in terms of finding truth as a destination, or else, quite simply, it would have resonated and sunk in to all people, whether they like it or not lol There probably wouldn’t be cause for extensive explanations, re-work, re-write, re-interpretation and the like. And the names of individuals wouldn’t pre-dominate the ‘advances’ time and again.

There’s something about simplicity which I like. It’s peaceful and it’s quiet and it’s accessible without too much thinking and makes me joyful. And I get to use my faculties for many other things that bring progress amd pleasure for me on my journey, which gives a sense of satisfaction.

My friend Erin has taken a beautiful challenge to try to bring a ‘lay man’s’ perspective to integral, having practised the lifestyle herself for many years and I am looking forward to her presenting in language we can all enjoy. Well, only if she’s inspired. ;)

Thank you for this opportunity to post here Mike.

Sherri

Actually, I think she was trying to bring a balance to these perennial [delay tactic hahah] discussions by showing how it is used, and not just how it is dreamed about.

It so happened that her computer crashed and it would seem [pure bold speculation on my part] like God doesn’t want her to use her living time right now, indulging it too much. So she didn’t get to write anything at all. Things happen. Move on lol

Doesn’t really matter. That’s the truth I feel. At some point we have to decide ‘who’ is in control and let go to it. Simple so.

Blessings to you. Sherri

“What is Integral Life Practice? Developed at Ken Wilber's Integral Institute, it is a highly flexible system for working on your physical health, spiritual awareness, emotional balance, mental clarity, relational joy, and energy level, within a framework where everything fits together—where you finally make sense, because no important part of you is left out. Practicing this elegant, flexible system even for just 10 minutes a day will enhance literally everything—it will make your life more joyful, loving, healthy, whole, intelligent, fun, and compassionate.”

And you can get your own starter kit for only $200! :) What a bargain.

I'll be honest, I'm feeling pretty jaundiced about Integral these days, not so much because of the theory itself, but because of what many of those who tout Integral on this site say to each other and to and about people who are not the right “colour” but “mean green meme”. 

I know people could say the same thing about any philosophy or religion, the people who say they follow it can be the worst advertisements, because people are people, but… I feel less and less comfortable anyway.

Too bad, because there are so useful ideas in there.

Yes, ultimately it's the intention behind it. I don't like the elitism surrounding it; it's a different brand of classifying which does turn me off. I do not sense the harmony and love one would expect from a comfort with spiritual self… Everything in due course I guess!

Much love to you! Sherri

yes, all manner of thing shall be well, as Julian of Norwich said!

love you too! hugs

I find Integral theory intellectually stimulating, but mostly it doesn't inspire me in any deep way.  I do feel there is something important that it overlooks, that maybe in excluding some viewpoints it undermines the potential for a certain kind of balanced attitude.

Elitism can be a problem for any group that is trying to define itself as being distinct from other groups.  The problem with Integral theory excluding some viewpoints is that it might have less to do with rational reasons and more to do with this need to establish a group identity.  There is nothing inherently wrong with such perfectly normal group behavior.  It depends on the purpose(s) that Integral theory is serving, consciously and unconsciously.

Hey mike S,

I've been thinking more about integral recently for some obvious reasons.  I never feel quite in line with groups dedicated to integral and I don't know why that is.  I've belonged to several integral forums and I find the people interesting in a general way, but I don't feel a strong connection.  I think its partly that integral attracts many people with clear agendas about changing the world according to their personal visions and that isn't where my head is at.  I'm all for change, but I can't say I have a singular vision that I wish the world to conform to.  And then there is the whole overly intellectual angle.  All in all, Integral groups have a very masculine feel to them, Thinking function as I would say.

I find it irritating because I'm really attracted to the potential for Integral.  I like OM's view.  OM doesn't like the term “theory” as used with Integral, but prefers to think of Integral as a way of thinking, an attitude.  I've thought along those lines for a while now.  When you call it a theory, it implies a singular correct interpretation.  Some people like to call it an orienting generalization, but the problem with this terminology is that it can just be a way of avoiding the specifics of criticism.

Related to OM's view, I've been interested in the possibility of a Theory for Anything (TFA) rather than a Theory of Everything (TOE).  From my perspective, the former seems like a more humble enterprise.  If you're proposing a TOE, how can you avoid elitism?

The only way I know to avoid Integral elitism is by emphasizing the attitude of multiple perspectives.  Yes, Integralism gives a framework for understanding various viewpoints.  But Integralism itself is a viewpoint.  No single theory will be adequate.  Integral theory can be used to view and even judge other theories, and other theories can be used for the same purpose towards Integral theory.  This is why I was, in my symposium presentation, pointing out the difference between a systematizer and a bricoleur.

I once posted a brief comparison of Wilber's integral movement with the existential moverment's spokesperson Jean Paul Sartre and there were some prominent similarities.

Do you remember where you posted that?  And would you mind linking to it or else reposting it?

I would only ask, how would you define “perfectly normal group behavior”?

Partly, I just meant it was common.  But I do think that seeking group identity is a natural function of being human that is ingrained in human genetics.  Of course, there are less than healthy manifestations of this natural function.

Congrats on your Gaia fame.

Thanks, I guess… I'm not sure I want to become too famous.
BTW do any perks come with that?  :)

I have been reading your blog and and 'symposium” material. I wanted to comment, but unfortunately, my comments (like many of my blog posts) tend to be rather long (and some would say “boring”) so i tell myself I will when I have sufficient time and well…the time just passes.

In case you hadn't noticed, I like long comments.   Ah, sufficient time is an issue I understand.  That is unfortunate.  I feel that some of the Integral commentators I'd agree with the most are the ones who mostly avoid the Integral discussions.

Thanks for coming 'round these parts, stranger!

I was happy to find this blog to comment on.  I just got my new computer set up and so I have more time to mosy around Gaia.  I was without a working computer for this entire past month… can you believe that!  I had to try to muddle through the whole symposium with very limited computer access.  I was feeling quite frustrated by the end of it… along with maybe a few other people.

I am always surprised by the vehemence and venom exhibited when someone disagrees with Integral ideas. Not to deny the critical anger from the other side. The anger of these two camps seem to fuel one another. It's easy to see how many would choose to avoid the topic.

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what it is.  I often sense this undertone of competition… not just about who is right but also in who gets to control the discussion.  I think that many Integralists see themselves in a cultural war.  They feel they're a minority which is true in some sense, and so they feel they must defend Integral from being undermined or else taken over by the less integral… whether the pre-rational or the mean green. 

On top of this, I get the sense that some Integralists feel a need to keep a lid on the more emotional and inter-subjective elements or else mostly limit them to rational discussion.  I think that part of the reason for this is that Wilber's Integral theory presently lacks tools with enough subtlety to analyze complex personal differences.  Integral Theory relies too heavily on the broad generalizations of systems such as Spiral Dynamics.

However, I do think that the Integral community is changing and I'm sure that is exactly what some of the oldtimers are afraid of.  I was just on the Integral Pod perusing the threads.  I noticed a slightly different feel in some threads than what I'm used to from my past experience of Integral forums.  The reason I suspect is that the Integral Pod is on Gaia.  Integral may attract more Thinking types or otherwise tend to cause people to take on a Thinking mindset, but the Gaia community overall is more Feeling.

I imagine that I will NOT avoid, but be much more cautious in my tone and try to remain intellectually static. (tough for me as I have a tendency to be a bit bellicose and belligerent at times, but I'm working on that)

I won't be avoiding anything either.  I just joined the Integral Pod afterall.  I'm going to also try something like what you stated.  I want to test out the waters over at the Integral Pod.  I plan on observing some first and being more neutral when I initially start posting there.  But it will be a challenge. 

As you might've noticed from my symposium presentation, I don't always feel in sync with other Integralists.  I still don't know why none of the other symposium presenters wanted to engage me deeply on the ideas I brought up.  Balder did after a while… with some prodding.  I'm I so far out of the Integral loop that my ideas seem irrelevant to most Integralists?  Or maybe the other presenters were just tired out from discussion by the time my turn came up.  I was disappointed by it anyhow.

I just wanted to add that I'm not intending to pick on Balder.  I mentioned him because its representative of the difficulty I've had in relating with Integralists.  It frustrates and downright bewilders me because I actually agree with Balder about almost everything he writes.

The thing is that I know I'm not just projecting my own issues.  Balder admitted to being reluctant in the symposium about me bringing up the personal aspects because as a teacher he has to consider his students might be reading.  And he admitted to being reluctant in the first blog of his that I responded to because he didn't want the discussion to get off-topic.  Both of those incidents involved differences of personality and social roles. 

However, my trying to bring up these differences then puts into the realm of the personal where Balder doesn't want to go because the professional role he plays.  So, how can an “Integral” discussion occur with such limitations?  Doesn't Integral include and necessitate the discussion of the personal?

It isn't a matter of either Balder or I being right and the other wrong.  Its a simple conflict of relating that so far seems to have no satisfying resolution.  The way I wish to interact isn't going to change and Balder's role as teacher isn't likely to change.

Furthermore, this reluctance towards the personal doesn't just seem like an issue of Balder's role as teacher.  I haven't quite figured it out, but I get the feeling that it has something to do with Integral in general.  I know from interacting with Thinking types that they're more reluctant to mixing the personal and intellectual, and it seems obvious to me that the Integral community heavily leans towards the Thinking function.

Hi guys.

I haven't commented for a long time just because I'd like to see how things move on their own. I also acknowledge the difference in cultural mindset which predominates vs.  mine [which is at best Western-aware, but does not hold the distinction of Western totally…]

I do hope I do not sidetrack the positive movements that are taking place…

I wanted to insert that my concern about integral and, well, what I call old-style academic approaches is precisely that of consciously or unconsciouly setting limitations. How could it be an embracing theory if it can't be presented broadly? In fact, just like any great idea, the more we release it generally into the universe, the more inputs it can receive and build body and momentum!

My comment responds therefore to the influence of ego, again, on this supposedly progressive spirituality discussion. It isn't about the 'all is one' idea… it is about the victory, of winning the argument! Most persons who I have encountered that act in this way are awesome, incredible debaters; they are in the habit of pulling 'facts' and theories out of the sky and throwing them down to dominate their opponents. Words are a weapon and facts is an outstanding ammunition stockpile.

But if these persons are in a situation where they are called out for being too resistant, too defensive in lay man's language, they usually are really confused about how to follow up now… More arguments indicate more resistance, eh?

It kind of simply demonstrates the non-alignment with even what the eye can see about nature… there isn't disharmony. There are pockets of energy buildup and release, but ultimately, it's all embracing! There aren't segments of universal life slotted out and put aside pending proof by … well, I don't know who would prove it! To whom?

I emphasise the ego aspect again while I make the point that image is so important in this little world; but an image which demonstrates a lack of perfection is not at all tolerated. I am a teacher; I am ABSOLUTELY a teacher. It is my most significant job. But doesn't honesty and realism add value to this or any profession? I believe that as a teacher I have a responsibility to show that I AM human and that I haven't thought out everything yet. I can get far more influence in such an atmosphere… and better yet, I just might learn a few things on the way and be a better teacher as time goes along. My students, by the way, consider me brilliant despite my confessions to limited knowledge, but I am really really great at following back up and this speaks quite a bit of volumes!

While I express my truth in openness [like the laws of nature insist…!] I get back so much that helps me to build my own effectiveness and frankly helps me to 'beat competition' without trying! It is a little shocking how that works! But the point is: I try my best to not limit even my expression. I assume the whole world is listening, which if anyone with even a little dip into law of attraction knows, it is!

Finally, ego is an indicator of an attempt to control space. That is God's domain… the big Fella that's got the whole 'world' in His hands.We individually or even in a group of a few hundreds will never have the capacity to hold anything significant in our hands. Some humility is in order… They don't call the most dramatic acts in nature 'Acts of God' for nothing! Keep it real…

Man in whatever space he feels comfortable with, will never be able to control all of the forces of the universe. When one separates himself from God / others to do this, he also separates himself from Source Power… that is the big input right there… The sooner one accepts this, the better for individual existence; but in any case, the show must go on; and look how it is.

Peace and love. Friend, Sherri

Hey Sherri,

You bring up some good points.  You're not sidetracking anything.

Even though we're coming from different perspectives, it seems to me that we're writing about similar understandings.  Personality type isn't identical with issues of ego, but ego definitely comes up in terms of such differences.  I'd say that old-style academic approaches and an enjoyment of debate both are relevant to a Thinking cognitive style.  I've seen research that shows that higher education is more supportive of Thinking types than of Feeling types. 

Ego comes up in terms of our self-identities and our social roles.  What we think of as ego also depends on our type.  Thinking types are more focused on autonomy and competitiveness.  From a Feeling type's perspective, this could seem egotistic.  Another thing is that ego becomes emphasized when we identify with too simplistic of a sense of self.  We all have all functions.  If we identify with just our dominant, then it can be easy to project our issues with our inferior function on to people of that type.

I'm aware of my issues with the Thinking function.  Its my inferior and I was raised by parents with strong Thinking functions.  My sense of conflict with Integralists has a strong personal aspect for me.  I'm aware of this because I've been on Thinking type forums and I'm intimately aware of how it feels to be in such a community.  Part of the issue for me is that one's inferior is also what one aspires towards and this is magnified by the fact that my dad modelled it for me.

The conflicts and disagreements that surround Integralism aren't merely about type, but I know that in my case typology plays a big part.  I suspect the same may be true for others.  Ego issues, of course, go way beyond typology.  Humility is always a good principle to keep in mind.  The reason I like typology is because it reminds me of humility by reminding me of my limits and biases.  That said, I like to seek out that which exists beyond of all systems of thought whether typology or integralism.

This is a great discussion. Ben, I'm really keen to hear what you think of the Integral pod, once you have had a chance to observe enough. Have either of you dipped your toes into the Robert Masters pod or the Integral Islands?

I too am leaning toward a different way of Integral. Apparently, we are all too “mean green meme” to be taken seriously by most Integralists here lol, so if we still find something of value in Integral, we have to take a different approach…

I will keep looking at your TFA as it develops, Ben.

Mike, thanks for hosting and helping along this discussion. I find your blog discussions really important.

Hugs all around

Hi Ben

Thanks for receiving me so openly. I have always been a bit resistant myself to be put into categories; this itself might be worthy of some typology! For example, I never want to wear what's in fashion; I like classic stuff which endures. I didn't choose to follow the language stream in secondary school although languages were my best subjects; I chose to do some sciences as well. I resisted quantitative study at PhD Level because I think it is too abstract and am trying to influence the use of more qualitative indicators in economic activity. I don't like the idea of categories; I just feel my freedom evaporating!

As a consequence I can tell you that I am definitely a thinking type… but I never desire to be just that. I think the combination of the two - consciously I might add - has enhanced my effectiveness and capability quite considerably. More importantly, thinking without acting and ideally in the service of something useful has left me quite dissatisfied with life. It's nobody's fault, just my experience. And so I have tried to cultivate and embrace the feeling side of me. I've got pretty good!

I must make the point that my family isn't feely-feely at all. Only my grandmother showed me any affection in my youth. My parents essentially rejected me. I had one example to work with out of many and I chose the type of person I'd want to be. The rest looked miserable; my gran looked happy. Case closed [thinking side kicked in there lol]

Really, everything in life will come to choices and more than anything about your character. I don't mean to get into preaching but this is possibly the sole mantra that I have had the occasion to give to others, time and again, irrespective of background… Pretty much everything else is incidental and perhaps should be treated as such. It causes a lot less resistance and panic when it is done that way.

I think the integral debate is a path to self; but like my exploits took me through religion, both Christianity and Buddhism, through immersion in desolate situations, through feeling the burn of self reflecting and ended up with none of them being the solution to my seeking, no single approach is going to ever get the big picture… Like I said to another person this week: I have my truth, have fun finding yours! But please lighten up with it!

Love and light to you. Sherri

Hi Sherri!  I can't say to what degree I understand or agree with your perspective as I don't know you that well.  Although, I think I get a general sense of what you're meaning.  I think our respective views are partly just a difference of interpretation and emphasis.

Really, everything in life will come to choices and more than anything about your character.

I don't see choice and character as in conflict or as one being more important.  Personality types isn't a deterministic model, but specifically was designed for self-improvement.  To the degree we understand ourselves is the degree that we have freedom to choose.  And, vice versa, the choices we make influences our character.

Pretty much everything else is incidental and perhaps should be treated as such. It causes a lot less resistance and panic when it is done that way.

I would add that this is your personal truth.  My personal truth is that acceptance and understanding causes me less resistance and panic.  However, neither do I see that my truth is in conflict with your truth.  Both are valid.  I'm a both/and kinda guy.

no single approach is going to ever get the big picture

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  I like to consider multiple perspectives because no single one can contain everything.  Theories, to me, are just perspectives.

I have my truth, have fun finding yours! But please lighten up with it!

Yep, many truths for many people.  That is why I like both typology and integralism.  They help me to understand other people's truths as being as valid as my own.  As for lightening up, I can be serious at times, but I'm not always serious.  I do have fun in my search for my truth.  I've taken to heart Campbell's oft-quoted pearl of wisdom: “Follow your bliss.”  The adverse of this is to listen carefully when you're feeling a lack of bliss and there is often a lesson there.  I'm thinking a lot about this sense of conflict that I've been feeling because understanding helps me to better to follow my bliss.

Blessings,
Marmalade

I actually think we are in agreement all the way. The couple things you weren't sure about seemed to say exactly what I meant to, so that's cool with me.

And certainly if getting to know your neighbour better is the little tickler to your nose, I am really really pleased with you. And I think you can tell that's my bliss too! I love getting to know diverse people!

So we shall follow our bliss simultaneously; I am exhausted though [not at all because of this conversation, make a note!] with debating things. I haven't been shaken for a while although I do try to stay open. I love the freedom of feeling like I get the point and that now I can run through life doing what makes me happiest and the lovely thing is the realisation that that often includes helping to make someone else happy! So I am off to talk with a friend who's planning some cool service activities.

Sincere blessings to you! Sherri

Sherri, I sympathise with your exhaustion with debating. I think we need to listen to ourselves and honour our needs to withdraw from the fray from time to time, and you are so good and this, so I'm not saying it as if it's new, just affirming your clarity. I hope you had a glorious time talking with your friend and that your weekend does indeed involve following your bliss.

Ben,

My personal truth is that acceptance and understanding causes me less resistance and panic.  However, neither do I see that my truth is in conflict with your truth.  Both are valid.  I'm a both/and kinda guy.

One of the things I love so much about you, buddy!

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  I like to consider multiple perspectives because no single one can contain everything.  Theories, to me, are just perspectives.

Yep, many truths for many people.  That is why I like both typology and integralism.  They help me to understand other people's truths as being as valid as my own. 

I was having a heart to heart with Kit in emails back and forth about the God Pod, and finding a way together to share insights and truths without getting too much into debating. I feel like more and more light is shining for me, understanding a little better all the time how to do what has been my goal there from the start - to facilitate true, open and respectful dialogue, learning to shut down discussion less. But it's a work in process. You have been one of my important teachers Ben, and you, Sherri, and you, Mike.

As for lightening up, I can be serious at times, but I'm not always serious.  I do have fun in my search for my truth.  I've taken to heart Campbell's oft-quoted pearl of wisdom: “Follow your bliss.”  The adverse of this is to listen carefully when you're feeling a lack of bliss and there is often a lesson there.  I'm thinking a lot about this sense of conflict that I've been feeling because understanding helps me to better to follow my bliss.

I'm a big believer in bliss too. I can fully attest to how good you are at being light-hearted and zany, another thing I love about you, Ben (and your sense of humour, Sherri, and yours, Mike!).

It's been interesting to me that though it has been very intense this week on the God Pod, I feel light and free about it, I feel encouraged that we are talking openly about really challenging issues that go to the heart of life and community, which again is what we are showing up here on Gaia for, right?

Love and hugs to you all!