Partial Dreams

I haven't really addressed the issue which prompted me to write the "Integral Dreams" article. In effect, what I feel the critics and objectors are doing is not something I can comfortably put in a simple statement. But I don't like leaving anything hangin', so being an obsequious sycophant I'll do my best here, even if I should fail.:-)

By the way, today I just found out that in 2004, simultaneously to my publishing of Croatian edition of KW's TOE and BHE, a graduate thesis was done entitled "Integral Culture and Its Enemies" by a student of sociology in Zagreb. I feel that this title is in fact quite appropriate to start my formulation here.

In stark opposition there are enemies, and there's strife and conflict. In short, war. It's the emergence of integral culture that we're witnessing. The whole first tier is trembling, and the active resistance stems from all its levels. Magical, mythical, rational and relativistic resistances are manifesting simultaneously in individual and collective spheres, from within and without.

Authentic integral culture is a promise, yet to be realized. A promise most eloquently laid out and argued by Ken Wilber. But for some, the more impatient, integral culture is also a present millieu of so-called cultural creatives, a special strain of postmodern optimists, who believe that happiness is indeed something real to be achieved. Most of objectors and critics in question clearly argue their views from a precarious point of autonomous ego (in Loevinger's meaning). "Precarious" because this level is unstable in them for reasons I cannot know. A specific problem at that level is a conflict of needs and duties, which seems rather obvious, but specifically there is inability to transcend and exclude certain modes of reasoning and justifying, making it impossible to accept the radically impersonal nature of emergent unfolding. Therefore, all objectors and critics show inability to deal with true paradox in a stable fashion.

An "enemy" here is not someone "bad" or an open adversary, but actually someone good and smart and responsible, someone sympathetic to the cause, a benefactor even. "We have met the enemy, and it's us." Or, as H.H. the Dalai Lama would say of Chinese, "My friends, the enemy." It's simply that, at this point the integral project, namely Integral Institute, needs more than our personal integrity. What EACH of us involved does, will contribute in either way to the eventuality of the integral promise being fulfilled - or not.

It's not really about KW's leadership and management skills. And it's not about his writing genius being more than "enough", as Steve Frazee suggested. He also argued about first-tier vs second-tier. First-tier organizational design is not a foundation for a second-tier organization. "Second-tier content" is not enough. Doing great in first-tier terms is not enough. People who consider joining I-I should not think "What's in it for me?" This time it's not about you. It's not about your next step. It's about the Next Step. Ken is publicly looking for a Turquoise CEO? So what? How do you want it phrased? Do you want him to say "I'm looking for the most efficient and most motivated and most authentic soul-developed person to come and work for the I-I for years without ever thinking in terms of needs vs. duties while constantly giving everything s/he's got to me personally and to the vision of I-I"? But he did say that. He obviously needs more than an employee. He desperately needs an inspired genius creative "beyond-world-class" in all CEO-things. A genius-pandit is looking for a genius-CEO! Where is your application? The "enemy", at this point, is complacency and tendency to look for opportunities and excuses, when we ought to be building and actualizing a new type of organizational value-structure devoted to supporting an interior emergence which may very well remain just a promise for the time being (it's definitely not just another "organization"). It's up to us. Well, some of us.

"There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile," said the old Emperor to Maximus Decimus.

I find it curious that people who negatively criticize and/or attack I-I or Ken Wilber, don't seem to show a clearly defined path with a strong allegiance, or other indications they're capable of, or at least interested in, letting go of self-interest in the broader sense, in a deeper sense. Am I talking amber? The problem of denomination and membership may only seem abandoned at the autonomous level, however, we are always-already in debt in ways known and unknown, even when we play our autonomous games. At this point, to whom it may concern, we are in future-debt to Ken Wilber - yes, even personally - for making us believe in the impossible promise of an authentic integral culture, for making us resonate with what is only a possibility, without which all these discussions would never take place anyway. May we never retract from that obligation.

A final caveat. It's quite irrelevant whether I'm "right" or "wrong" or "misinformed" in any respect. This is not about finding the truth. What we pursue is beyond "truth", and certainly beyond personal truths.

To close, let me quote from kenwilber.com blog: "May we all see, fear and tremble, may healing to our shared soul come swiftly, and may this healing encompass all involved and all who are witness, in this and all worlds."