Ken Wilber on Politics

Here's a free video download available for everyone if you're not a member at Integral Naked. The format is Quicktime/iTunes and the size is 130 MB. There's also an audio version of the 30 minutes clip, plus a useful intro on stages of structural ("vertical") development at the same page. Go for it.

UPDATE! Just been made available on youtube, so here it goes:

Ken Wilber at Salon.com

An interview with Ken Wilber at Salon.com entitled "You are the river". Done by Steve Paulson, here's an excerpt:

Why has the scientific worldview dismissed this trans-personal dimension? For most intellectuals around the world, the secular scientific paradigm has triumphed.

It's understandable. Historically, if you look at these broad stages, the magical era tended to be 50,000 years ago, the mythic era emerged around 5,000 B.C., and the rational era -- secular humanism -- emerged in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an attempt to liberate myth and base truth claims on evidence, not just dogma. But when science threw out the church, they threw out the baby with the bath water.

You can't prove a higher stage to someone who's not at it. If you go to somebody at the mythic stage and try to prove to them something from the rational, scientific stage, it won't work. You go to a fundamentalist who doesn't believe in evolution, who believes the earth was created in six days, and you say, "What about the fossil record"? "Oh yes, the fossil record; God created that on the fifth day." You can't use any of the evidence from a higher stage and prove it to a lower stage. So someone who's at the rational stage has a very hard time seeing these trans-rational, trans-personal stages. The rational scientist looks at all the pre-rational stuff as nonsense -- fairies and ghosts and goblins -- and lumps it together with the trans-rational stuff and says, "That's non-rational. I don't want anything to do with it."

So where does God fit into this picture? Do you believe in God?

God is a perfect example of how these two types of religion treat ultimate reality. You asked, "Do you believe in God?" In exoteric religion, it's a matter of belief. Do you believe in the kind of God who rewards and punishes and will sit with you in some eternal heaven? But in the esoteric form of religion, God is a direct experience. Most contemplatives would call it "godhead." It's so different from the mythic conceptions of God -- the old man in the sky with a gray beard. The word "God" is much more misleading than it is accurate. So there's a whole series of terms that are used instead by the esoteric traditions -- super consciousness, Big Mind, Big Self. This ultimate reality is a direct union that is felt or recognized in a state of enlightenment or liberation. It's what the Sufis call the "supreme identity," the identity of the interior soul with the ultimate ground of being in a direct experiential state.

It does raise the question of whether God -- or ultimate reality -- has some independent existence, or whether this is just a mental state that our minds can conjure up.

That's right. One way we try to find out is by doing cross-cultural studies of individuals who've had the experience of the supreme identity and see if it shows similar characteristics. The most similar characteristic is it doesn't have characteristics. It's radically undefinable, radically free, radically empty. This formless ground of being is found in virtually all esoteric religions around the world. For the final test, take scientists with a Ph.D. who are studying brain patterns and put them in a contemplative state of the supreme identity and ask them whether they think that state is real or just a brain state. Nine out of 10 will say they think it's real. They think this experience discloses a reality that's independent of the human organism.

Do you see this ultimate reality as some sort of being or intelligence out there?

Well, if you look cross-culturally, what you'll find is that spirit or godhead can be looked at either through first-person, second-person or third-person perspectives. The third-person perspective is to see spirit as a grand "it." In other words, a vast web of life. Gaia in this third-person is the sum total of everything that exists. A second-person way of looking sees spirit as a "thou," as an actual intelligence that is present and is something you can, in a sense, have a conversation with, keeping in mind the ultimately unknowable nature of godhead. Many of the contemplative traditions go further and say you can approach spirit as a first person. So that spirit is "I." Or that would be Big Self.

Read the whole thing (link to print version).

Integral Theory in Action

1st Biennial Integral Theory Conference

The theme of the conference to be held August 7th-10th, 2008 is
Integral Theory in Action: Serving Self, Other, and Kosmos.

The conference will:

* Showcase how scholars and professionals are using Integral Theory to impact the lives of individuals and communities.
* Highlight emerging lines of Integral scholarship and research.
* Include 100 individual presentations, 12 panel discussions, and 30 poster presentations.
* Feature presenters from 10 different countries, including Spain, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, South Africa, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, and all regions of the United States.

Why should I attend?

Attendees will gain:

* An unprecedented opportunity to network within a global community of Integral scholar-practitioners and pioneering Integral thinkers.
* A focus on community, discourse, and dialogue.
* Multiple forums in which to engage in critical reflection and debate the current state of the Integral field.
* A deepened capacity to apply Integral principles in their own lives and professional work through a conference focus on application.

What topics will the conference address?

* Psychotherapy and Coaching
* Community Development and Activism
* Global Warming and Sustainabilty
* Spirituality and Religious Pluralism
* Business and Economic Development
* Cultural Diversity
* Politics
* Health and Embodiment
* Feminism
* Gay and Lesbian Issues
* Theoretical Challenges and Modifications to the AQAL Approach

Come join us for this historic opportunity to participate to in the growth of Integral Theory and its application!

Visit website for further info.

Evolution according to Ken?

As the saying goes, "There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil" (Whitehead). Or, according to another one, "The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off" (Gloria Steinem). I tend to opt for William James', "The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths."

Ken Wilber has been criticized on various grounds. Most persistently and obstinately by those who refuse to read his work. Some critics, though, have found their platform in "disclosing" and "exposing" Wilber's arguments so as to bring into question the entire edifice of his thought and, quite often, even his integrity. The main gaffe, repeated ever so frequently, was/is to take an illustrative remark and then subject it to a detailed rebuttal by proving its "untruth". Then, of course, concluding the remark is wrong, we can all happily ignore the referent, namely the principle in question to which the illustrative remark was used to refer to. That is, I believe, the hidden - well, not very hidden - agenda behind criticizing Wilber's understanding of the non-bird developing wings which make it a bird, an innocent illustration used to refer to Eros and its role in Evolution.

Here's a comment from Ken Wilber in reply to remarks on "randomness" by Alexander Astin. It's a short piece, but sufficient to make the point. LINK

Wilber on Shadow

'...One of the things that's great about shadow work is it doesn't just have you say, feel into your feelings, get in touch with feelings, how do you feel about it, etc. It actually takes the opposite of how you feel and says “OK, feel that.” Because that's pretty much what your shadow is, is the opposite of what you're consciously aware of. So as I say, using the monster example again, if you are out of touch with your aggression, your anger - and, incidentally, for Buddhists to say, “well, you're never supposed to feel anger,” the point it, well, if you're unconsciously feeling it, you have to consciously feel it first, and then you can try to transcend it or transmute it - but for you to just go around saying, “I'm not going to feel anger now,” that just seals your repression. So the worst possible thing you can do if you have repressed negatives like anger or aggression is to get caught up in one of those practices that say that aggression is the root of all evil because your shadow loves that kind of stuff.

So what you do then is: the monster shows up in your dream, your projected anger shows up in your dream as this monster that's trying to attack you, and what you feel is fear; so we don't say get in touch with your fear - I mean you can if you want to, but it's an inauthentic emotion. [laughs] We say identify with the monster, feel the monster, now what does the monster want to say? The monster is not afraid of you, I assure you. [laughs] You're not going to feel fear, you're going to feel, “I hate you so much I want to kill you” or “I'm so angry at you I could rip your head off” or something like that. So that's the way that you can - to some degree, on your own, and at least as a sort of introduction/initiation into it - you can get a sense of your shadow, because it's really helping you feel almost the opposite of what you think you're feeling. Like I say, just feeling your feelings and getting in touch with your feelings and all that, that won't get you in touch with your shadow, because your shadow is the opposite of what you feel, and that's just a pretty good definition of what the shadow is - the opposite of what you're consciously feeling....'

From a transcript of a recent conference call with Ken Wilber. Transcribed by Arthur Gillard. Thanks to Julian for heads up. Read the whole piece here (a lot more in the transcript, not limited to shadow).

AND, there's a free audio where Ken is asked "How would you define what you do?" Listen to find out what he answers. To download go here.

Integral Spirituality

The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner famously said "the Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, or not a Christian at all." Few people have impacted Christianity in this regard as has Fr. Thomas Keating. A Cistercian monk from St. Benedict's Monastery in Snowmass, Colorado, Fr. Thomas has spent a lifetime in deep Christian practice, and in sharing the fruits of this contemplation with countless others. We were enormously blessed to host a dialogue with Fr. Thomas and Ken Wilber in April of 2006, and we're delighted to share with you some of those beautiful moments. In this video, Ken presents some of the foundational concepts of Integral spirituality.

Link to video at KW's blog.

History and Dharma (7)

What's the relationship between structures and states? Clearly, something is going on. It's not that we have invented structure-stages, but it's impossible to find a specific description of them in wisdom traditions. However, intuitive understanding of structures is present in the best stage conceptions we may find in later Buddhist teachings (e.g. Nyingma, Sakya, Huayen, Tendai, Shingon). Also, the three turnings of the wheel in the Buddhist tradition are not only an advancement and refinement in states, but also in structures (at the esoteric level, that is).

How does consciousness, being a nondual union of absolute and relative at once, not twice, appear as structure and state simultaneously? This dual nature is somewhat reminiscent of quanta having both wave and particle properties.

Basic binary combinations may also be applied to state-stages and structure-stages to figure out what will not work. It will not work, because "structures" and "states" are neither identical, nor separate, that is, they are two different perspectives on the process of development.

(1) States are the only reality, structures an illusion, everything can be explained and all purposes achieved by relying on states. This is zone#1 absolutism, wherein structure-stages are either not discerned, or not admited. In some cases, this approach turns into a state absolutism, where only one state is recognized as really real.

(2) Structures are the only reality, states do not have meaning, all development takes place in structures, as structures, through structures. This is zone#2 absolutism, wherein state-stages are seen as non-existent, or unproven/fancy, or downright pathological.

(3) Structures and states are not related, though both are relatively real. This is an impossible situation, since it is quite clear that prolonged disturbance in states will cause a regression in structures. Therefore, it is clearly the case that structure growth and stability depends on some sort of state-cohesion.

(4) Structures and states are situated in the same continuum, wherein state-stages actually refer to the highest structure-stages. This was the model embraced also by KW at least until TOE (2000), though he was quite clear on "levels and lines", as well as "states and stages". This conception also doesn't work.

None of these seem to offer an appreciation of WCL. When interpreting the WCL, Wilber is not explaining how the two sets of stages are related, he is instead pointing out why we need both of these sets to better understand the nature of the process of transformation which obviously can accomodate both structure and states, and may consist of both types of stages. A lattice is, of course, a very simple illustration of a category-distinction. In practice, this relationship will exhibit complex fractals because of which it is easy to fuse and/or confuse the two categories.

On that note, there's another chart used to supplement the traditional view, that KW used in "One Taste" (2000). Here's the full quote preceeding the illustration:

"... the traditional Great Chain tends to confuse the levels of Being and the types of self-sense associated with each level. For example, mind is a level of the Great Chain, but the ego is the self generated when consciousness identifies with that level (i.e., identifies with mind). The subtle is a level of the Great Chain, the soul is the self generated when consciousness identifies with the subtle. The causal/spirit is a level in the Great Chain, the True Self is the "self" associated with that level, and so on. So the sequence of levels in the Great Chain should be body, mind, subtle, and causal/spirit, with the correlative self stages of bodyego, ego, soul, and Self--to use the very simplified version. Although I often use the traditional terminology (body, mind, soul, spirit), I always have in mind the difference between the actual levels (body, mind, subtle, causal) and the self at those levels (bodyego, ego, soul, Self).

Here is where some of these distinctions start to pay off (and the usefulness of the move from wilber-2 to wilber-3 becomes more obvious). The traditions generally maintain that men and women have two major personality systems, as it were: the frontal and the deeper psychic. The traditional Great Chain theorists (and wilber-2) would simply say that the frontal is the self associated with the body and mind, and the deeper psychic is associated with the soul, which would indeed be a type of ladder arrangement. But the frontal and the deeper psychic seem much more flexible than that; they seem to be, not different levels, but separate lines, of development, so that their development occurs alongside of, not on top of, each other. We can graph this as shown in figure 7 (for which I have reverted to a more accurate 6 levels)." (KW)

This is an example of "levels & lines" distinction, only applied not to preconventional, conventional and postconventional development of, say, cognition and morals, but instead on the traditional Great Spectrum development of three self-senses. If you're interested in the entire entry from One Taste, see here. But essentially, what is offered is levels of Being on the left/vertical scale and through these levels/stages we find developing three types of self-sense, i.e. frontal personality, deeper psychic and witness, phasing in and out at appropriate state-stages. Therefore, quote

"As the ego orients consciousness to the gross, and the soul orients consciousness to the subtle, the Self orients consciousness to the causal." (KW)

And then, to continue,

"While all of them have their root dispositions in specific realms or waves of the Great Nest, they also have their own lines or streams of development, so they often overlap each other, as indicated in the figure. And this is what I think so many meditation teachers and transpersonal therapists see in themselves and their clients, namely, that ego and soul and Spirit can in many ways coexist and develop together, because they are relatively separate streams flowing through the waves in the Great Nest of Being. And there can be, on occasion, rather uneven development in between these streams." (KW)

Well, the Great Nest is here to stay as Involution, and soon enough we will visualize 3D integral mandala, a synthesis of several necessary distinctions made so far to conceptualize the complexity of the ULQ: involution plus levels-and-lines plus structures-and-states as two crucial sets of stages. Plus, of course, the Shadow, and voila: prospect of upper-left quadrant, zone#1/zone#2 combined.


Indeed, from Integral Spirituality (KW, 2006) page 87, before introducing the Wilber-Combs lattice: "As for transformation itself: how and why individuals grow, develop, and transform is one of the great mysteries of human psychology. The truth is, nobody knows. There are lots of theories, lots of educated guesses, but few real explanations. Needless to say, this is an extraordinary complex subject."

It's my contention that Buddhadharma is, at it's esoteric core, perfectly capable of updating to include and express these propositions. That is, inasmuch as we're interested in an authentic 21st century continuation (lit. tantra) of the Gautama Buddha's proclamation of timeless Freedom, in fullest terms available in our time.

(to be continued, of course)

History and Dharma (6)

Alright, is "adopting the conceptual referents of Lankavatara or Avatamsaka sutra into a green altitude mindset" a problem in itself? Oh, yes! Frankly, it's quite a problem, since you're actually down-adopting some post-turquoise reports of a nondual insight into a tier-blind (i.e. green) structure, plus without that 1st person insight, so the problem is twofold - at least - and it requires a twofold solution.

But then, is "stabilizing at orange altitude/rational and developing quite a competence in states" somewhat better? Somewhat, but then such an individual would still interpret his/her realization in rational (orange) and probably relativistic (green) terms, without admitting the possibility of higher structures - and would be passing such limitation unto others, backed by indisputable realization. That is, Dharmakaya may be running quite smoothly, but Rupakaya is a bit outdated (running on 18th century Reason and "keeping it real!"). You can be a traditional arahant, modern arahant, postmodern arahant... amber bodhisattva, green bodhisattva, turquoise bodhisattva... If your manifest being is unobstructed responsiveness itself, why stop at any structure? If emptiness is indeed radical openness one with everything that's emerging, why not be one with the edge of evolution, embracing a critical update for your ego?

Since structure-stages and state-stages may unfold quasi-independently, this necessitates a dual center of gravity, one that may be annotated as altitude/state, such as 8/nd for turquoise altitude and nondual competence, or 4/c for amber altitude and causal/formless competence. This indeed opens up the whole question of their connection, because they are quasi-independent, not entirely unrelated.

We can safely presume that, in regular circumstances, until one breaks through the cultural ceiling (which may occur in adolescence, but unlikely before), there's no developmental impetus for serious state-training. We can also presume that post-turquoise, 3rd tier structures begin to spontaneously difuse the wakefullness into deeper states (i.e. gross toward subtle), along with frequent peak-experiencing in all four domains. Naturally, there are many other factors to consider, but these provide us with a crucial way to make sense of development in a time where it's not sufficient to distinguish between a "meditative" and "non-meditative" mind, nor between a highly developed and under-developed, but instead use both scales to gauge the unfathomable.

While structures may be relatively permanent - stable and resilient as in autopoietic - they're also affected by changes in states, and states change may be monitored, and discussed, in both upper quadrants. While structure growth is definitely a four-quadrant affair, regular meditation practice may indeed facilitate and accelerate growth in favorable circumstances, as it basicaly represents a series of mini-transformations that lubricate the structural unfolding.

Structures, on the other hand, are what is present as samsara at any given moment in history. At this moment, rational/orange and pluralistic/green altitude structures are not some of highest available patterns of development available. Would Gautama Buddha's awakening have a lesser impact if He chose to propagate the Dharma mainly from a mythic/absolutist level, or even a rational one? What's your hunch?

Being completely awakened means, therefore, at least, having access to all great states AND having developed through all available structures of consciousness. It was exactly what the Gautama Buddha did, long ago in ancient India, when he proclaimed the timeless Nirvana in highest terms available at that time.

(to be continued)


Note: Dustin DiPerna presents a comprehensive approach by applying the principles outlined in Ken Wilber's "Integral Spirituality" to religious studies. Please have a look at his Infinite Ladder chapter, download here. The site also offers an intro to Religious Orientation (see outline) by combining stages and types.

History and Dharma (5)

In the previous post (#4) I have briefly outlined the average/advanced model, used by Ken Wilber in "Up from Eden" to explain the difference in structure that most frequently goes with exoteric vs. esoteric views and their representatives. Pope John XXII and Meister Eckhart are definitely not to be placed in the same structure, hence the latter was tried by the first as a heretic. The example of Meister Eckhart (and Giordano Bruno etc.) perfectly illustrates how adequate (read: favorable) conditions in all four quadrants are necessary for growing in structures (even when, or especially when, you are awake in all states). And now, let's have a look at the W-C-Lattice.

As stated earlier, individuals and groups and societies at large develop through stages of structural increasing complexity, unevenly in various developmental lines. On the other hand, authentic contemplative training is mainly a matter of state-training, which itself evolves in stages. These two kinds of development have confused researchers for some time, so that twenty years ago, for example, the stages of mystical realization would be put on top of the more conventional structures (like in the average/advanced model). However, the W-C-L makes the important distinction of state and structures, that finally makes it possible to understand some deeper dynamics at work, namely discerning the development in state-stages and structure-stages as quasi-independent. As it mostly relates to the ULQ, being a synthesis of zone#1 and zone#2 discoveries, this is truly the 21st century abhidharma.




If you look at the diagram, at left/vertical we have one version of structural stages (this example shows Gebser's terms), given as archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral with an arrow pointing at further structures. On the top/horizontal we find four major types of mysticism, based on the natural states inhabited by every conscious human, namely waking, dreaming, sleeping and fundamental awareness (even babies inhabit them).

In order to demonstrate the importance of this distinction, let us consider a path of an individual: one is born into archaic and by the age of 25 will stabilize a structural center of gravity somewhere on the left line; at that age, in our example, one undertakes meditative training and experiences a series of inner awakenings that may be sequential (e.g. gross to subtle to causal) or may be focused on one of the states (e.g. formless emptiness). When one comes out of meditation, the experience itself will be filtered and interpreted and embodied through the structural level one has developed, whether mythic or integral. On the other hand, one may develop to a very high altitude structurally (this still allows for uneven development in particular lines, and split off subjectivity, i.e. shadow, at any level) without ever taking the "right turn" into state-training.

For example, one may become a salon Buddhist, by adopting the conceptual referents of Lankavatara or Avatamsaka sutra into a green altitude ("pluralistic") mindset, without developing any state-competence, except perhaps occasional "raw" peak-experiences or even spontaneous bursts of subtle illuminations or causal blackouts. On the other hand, one may stabilize at orange altitude/rational (in terms of a center of gravity, with all sorts of variations between lines and some type of shadow) and develop quite a competence in states.

We know examples of masters of meditation having strongly ethnocentric, xenophobic attitudes. We also have high-developed individuals quite unaware of the potential inherent in contemplative training. This is not only a matter of one line of development, while certainly a spiritual or meditative line may be considered. At any rate, first it's crucial to recognize that state-training does not guarantee structure-growth, or vice versa.

(to be continued)

History and Dharma (4)

So it's states and structures, or structures and states. There are two basic models to take a look at: one was proposed in "Up from Eden" (KW, 1981) relating the average mode to the advanced mode of consciousness. The other is the Wilber-Combs lattice (pic here). First the average/advanced model.

Prehistoric humanity (paleolithic to mesolithic, 200,000 yrs ago) identifies with archaic structure (Jean Gebser) as its average mode. It's difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct the mysticism at this level, though quite certainly the great states of waking, dreaming and sleeping are equally available with such a structure. My guess is that mystical experiences at this stage emerge almost exclusively as spontaneous bursts in gifted individuals, coupled with early forms of almost compulsive immersion through intense physical activity (journey into wilderness) and isolation from the herd/group/tribe. While terms are lacking for this early proto-mysticism, I opt for raw unity, where RAW stands for rapture, awe and wonder, these being the primordial sources of search for reintegration (the "atman project") through both states (immediate, obvious, pic here) and structures (longterm development, pic here) in ontogenetic and phylogenetic unfoldment.

From this stage, we find the emergence and stabilization of magical structure (mesolithic to neolithic, 50,000 yrs), perhaps also quickened in Left Quadrants by raw experiential breakthroughs of individuals, that strongly affected their groups due to hive resonances, and then relived in round the fire stories and rudimentary rituals wherein the whole group could be connected in rapture, awe and wonder. During the period of prevailing magical structure, we find shamanic and early yogic as the prototype of mysticism, and indeed nature mysticism prevailed as far as we can tell. These shamans developed higher-structure capacities such as mythic and mental, i.e. amber and orange altitude. (Note: as far the classification of mysticism is concerned - nature, deity, formless, nondual - there are many overlaps in this due to the fluid nature of states. This is a genealogy as much as a typology.)

In the same manner, with mythical structure in average mode (5,000 yrs) we find saintly spirituality of subtle realms in the advance mode, with mature mystics developing highly rational capacities, i.e. post-orange altitude, that allow them to conceptualize sophisticated systems of spiritual training and logical reasoning. Then, the first more stable emergence of rational structure coincides with formless/nondual mystics or sages, who not only have access to transrational structures, i.e. teal and higher, but are also originators of great religions we know today. While the Founders may have discovered the Ground, this esoteric certainty easily translated into mythic/rational conviction, just as their clarity in relation to confusion, was easily adopted and forgoteen in symbols of salvation and sin. Such is, still today, the relationship between exoteric and esoteric, roughly corresponding to most advanced and average mode of consciousness.

While having obvious virtues, this model does not sufficiently distinguish between structures and states in the same individual (pic here), thus making it difficult to explain how an advanced mystic may be a staunch nationalist (or even preconventional in some developmental line/s, diagram here), or even how a highly developed individual may be unawakened by deep spiritual standards.

The problem is now clear, potential confusion quite evident, and the solution is proposed in the Wilber-Combs lattice (pic here). I better take a look at it.

(to be continued)

Wilber on Politics

Ken Wilber speaks on politics. Duration 17:45 Enjoy the show!

Health for Ken Wilber

Om huru huru candali matangi svaha. Blessings of the Medicine Buddha to all sentient beings, little and small, ignorant and wise, deluded and purified, who are sick and struggling to regain their health, and to our dear Friend Ken Wilber. (Quote: "Early Wednesday morning Ken was admitted to a local hospital for repeated seizures and an abnormal cardiac pattern. Ken is currently in stable condition in the Intensive Care Unit.") As bodhisattva Shantideva has written in his Bodhicaryavatara, "Through my merit, may all those in all directions who are afflicted by bodily and mental sufferings obtain oceans of joy and contentment."

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."

Integral Dreams

"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 early in the Gladiator.

After seeing on Numinous Nonsense that a discussion easily turns into a shit-storm (Vince, thanks for the expression) and then continuing into the second part, I was reminded how concerned citizens often just like to gossip. The situation at Integral Institute may be swell or not so well, but those in the know should know better. I admit there are many ways to be a sincere supporter, I just don't see how posting dozens of "funny", very un-fluffy comments is one of them.

Elsewhere, arguments lose compass and humour goes sour. "Open Integral" is having fun, and they actually believe they're being funny - to themselves, perhaps. Frank Visser is also having fun in his "wilberwatch", but being simply ridiculous instead. (You remember his work on Ken Wilber, "Thought as Passion"? Well, the passion is gone, and not much is left.) In their leisure time, these guys have fun at poking their KW-dolls. A chair at the President's Circle, or a tenure at the I.U. would've surely changed their minds...

So what if things at I-I look bad? What are you doing to help? Are you there, giving I-I all you got? Are you there anyway? Are you still there doing your best?

I live in Croatia, a country with so many difficulties on all levels in all quadrants, where anyone with brains would commit suicide RIGHT NOW, if we only had one quarter of bad faith and self-inflation shown by many who consider themselves to be integral "thinkers" in their own right - it's so sad. Like spoiled brats, without any dignity or honor. It takes WILL to stay through the storm. It takes character (being a character doesn't mean you have one). The difficulties are never the ones you'd choose, the pay always sucks.

Without Ken Wilber, most wouldn't be discussing anything "integral" in the first place. We'd be left with a bunch of lousy holisms, bereft of any promise that in the 21st century those big, important words like Spirit and Depth can actually get very fucking real once again...

Give I-I the best you've got, instead of bitter and shallow remarks of dissapointment. Forget the altitudes and perspectives, just do your best. Or, if opportunistic hipocrisy is all you have, do something constructive for change and - simply shut up. Decency, remember? Especially when you're feeling the need to be critical. By the way, what tier is this?

Instead of dreaming integral dreams and making them into nightmares, wake up into our non-integral reality, where anyone can be an asshole, bitching about this and that, and asking to be treated better. Stop whining. Get over it. This is the time to evolve through the barely open crack and usher... Why not BE the change for once?

Maximus Decimus: "Five thousand of my men are out there in the freezing mud. Three thousand of them are bloodied and cleaved. Two thousand will never leave this place. I will not believe they fought and died for nothing."