Gaia and Integral

Gang!

Grey made a comment (can I use your name here, Grey?) in another Group on the site that he'd been feeling discouraged recently about what he perceived as a loss of vision on Gaia. This comment followed the observation that we'd (I'd!) removed the semi-private Groups from the 'Latest / Hot' feeds on the site, and he saw this as being reflective of a certain 'Green-ing' of the site or community.

I was tempted there to encourage a conversation around the topic, but felt it a) seemed more appropriate for this Group and b) realized I missed the integral space, and so, at Grey's encouragement, decided to bring it up for discussion here.

Gaia: is this community integral? What does that mean to you? Is it important that it be intergral as a whole, or merely that it sustain integral spaces? Do you think the community lacks Zaadz's vision, or do think instead that the vision has shfited?

And if you have your own questions to add, please toss them up. I'm just testing the waters. :)

Re: Gaia and Integral

Hi Siona

First I'd like to know why the semi-private spaces, such as The Integral Pod, were removed from the new/hot list?  What was the reasoning behind the decision?

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Gaia and Integral

Hi Arthur,

See the links to the other thread in my first post here in this thread, as well as Siona's post in that other thread here.

But then maybe Siona has something more to add for this “integral audience”…. ;-)

~G

Re: Gaia and Integral

Arthur: Well, Grey kindly provided a link. My reasoning was primarily to encourage participation and activity from new members, while allowing moderators who wished a slightly higher level of commitment and serious dedication to the topic to ensure that their Groups would be found only by those who were actively searching for, or interested in, such discussions. I wanted to lower the barriers for new visitors to the site who wished to splash in and start chatting, and I was worried that if their first experiences were with the semi-private Groups they might assume that this was the standard rather than the exception to the rule, and, as a new member, might feel shy about asking for an invite.

Does that make sense? I'll readily admit I was thinking more from the perspective of new members (ironically, these tend to be the ones with whom I interact the most) and not the established sorts, but these lines are fluid–we were all new once and we all have the opportunity to become old-timers. :)

Re: Gaia and Integral

Siona: I wanted to lower the barriers for new visitors to the site who wished to splash in and start chatting, and I was worried that if their first experiences were with the semi-private Groups they might assume that this was the standard rather than the exception to the rule, and, as a new member, might feel shy about asking for an invite.

Yeah, this is why I'd like to see an automated application process where a “semi-private” pod would still have a “Join Group” link or button, but potential new members would be presented with a couple of quick questions to answer as part of the application process. Then these requests would be subject to moderator approval before the person could participate in the pod.

In fact, something like this could be useful even for open-membership pods so that pod administrators can learn a little bit more about their new members when they join. So there'd be three ways to apply: (1) a “Join Now” link with no questions asked (like now); (2) a “Join Now” link with a couple of customizable questions to answer but no need for approval; and (3) a “Join Group” link with the questions and moderator approval.

I think clicking a link and answering a couple of automated questions is a lot less intimidating than having to contact a pod moderator privately.

And hey, you've mentioned the upcoming “ownerless” pods elsewhere, but what about “memberless” (or “totally open”, “community-wide”) pods, i.e. pods that anyone can participate in without having to be a “member” explicitly at all?  Would that be something that makes any sense? I would think this would work especially well for pods like “Gaia Support” or the “Gaia Lounge” or other official Gaia pods, but it might also be interesting for other purpose-specific, member-run pods.

OK, end tangent.  Sorry folks! :)

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Gaia and Integral

Grey said: “Yeah, this is why I'd like to see an automated application process where a “semi-private” pod would still have a “Join Group” link or button, but potential new members would be presented with a couple of quick questions to answer as part of the application process. Then these requests would be subject to moderator approval before the person could participate in the pod.”

good idea. i won't promise anything but i'll bring this up with our Dev team.

~C

Re: Gaia and Integral

Hi Siona (and everyone)!

Thanks for starting this thread! And yeah, it's fine to use my name here. Actually, since I'm the cultivator for the two pods in question (this one and the Gaia Groups Community), I thought I'd provide a link to my post in the other thread as some background info for everyone here. (The post that initially raises the issue is here.)

For anyone not interested in checking out the other thread, let me just quickly say that the reason I thought the change reflected a “Greening” of Gaia was that it seemed to be arbitrarily penalizing semi-private pods in favor of the purely public pods.

BTW, “semi-private” (or “semi-public”) refers to Gaia groups that are freely viewable to the public, but that require an invitation to join and to post messages. Both the Integral Pod and the Gaia Groups Community pod are semi-private, for example. For the moment, it's not a format that's freely available to all pods, though. Pod admin settings only include “public” and “private”, and to make a pod semi-private you need to contact the Gaia Team to see if this is possible for your pod. (Personally, I'm hoping that will no longer be the case when the next version of Gaia Groups rolls out later this summer….)

Siona: Is it important that it be intergral as a whole, or merely that it sustain integral spaces?

I'll wait for others to comment before I give my thoughts on the other questions, but I thought I'd answer this one now: for me, it's more the latter, i.e. that it sustain integral spaces. Although, I suppose it depends on what you mean by the site/community being integral “as a whole”.

I don't think that the Gaia community needs to be all integral, obviously enough I suppose (or I wouldn't be here ;-). I would, however, like to feel that the site is being designed and managed in an “integrally-informed” (in the broader sense of the term – i.e. the people designing and managing the site don't have to have ever actually heard of “Integral Theory” or Ken Wilber) manner. When Brian was still around, I had the impression that this was pretty much the case. Now that he's gone, I'm not so sure anymore. But I'm not sure how much of that impression is rational and based on evidence and how much is just based on my feelings and knowledge about Brian (not to mention all sorts of other issues – like the name “Gaia” itself, for example – and projections of shadow…).

So anyway, my own personal “issue” isn't with the community, but with the site and how I sometimes perceive that it's being run.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Gaia and Integral

Cool. Thanks, Grey.

Well, I'm the one in charge of designing the site and creating the policies / systems for it, and I think Bri himself would have no issue in saying that I have a much, much most long-standing history with integral than he does. I think that my energy and approach are likely more feminine (if that's the right language to use) and tend to err on the side of communion over than agency, so perhaps this is what's precipitating that experience of change. Still, I don't in any way think that this excludes an integral understanding.

Maybe more explicit examples would help me understand you, though. In some ways I think I'm just hearing you say you need some reassurance that there IS awareness and consciousness around the topic. If there's anything more I can do to provide this, please let me know. :)

Re: Gaia and Integral

I never felt that, in practice, Zaadz as a whole was particularly integral - in the sense that the average center-of-gravity of users on the site was hovering around integral altitudes.  The CoG seemed (according to my subjective impression) to be more along the lines of green.   That impression has not changed with the transition to Gaia.

When Brian was in charge, I believed that Zaadz was being run by people who were themselves integral, with the intention to cultivate the integral worldview; with Gaia, I just don't know.  Even under the Zaadz banner, there was a lot of stuff that offended my delicate integral sensibilities - such as (shhh!) The Secret.  Within that context I was interested in helping to cultivate pockets of genuine integral community and believed that Team Z was on the same page.  Again, with Team G?  I just don't know.

The original idea behind making this pod (in an earlier incarnation) semi-private was to share the crunchy integral goodness with whoever was interested, while maintaining a barrier to participation that would allow the moderators to (hopefully) keep the general CoG within the pod at integral altitudes, as well as ensure that those inside the pod play reasonably well with others.

Knowing that the pod is not visible on the “latest” and “hottest” lists, it feels less a part of the general Gaia community; I also feel that what is said here will have less potential impact, which I suspect will somewhat reduce my motivation to participate.

It's also unfortunate that there may be less “fresh blood” coming in as a result of people reading posts that pop up on the latest/hottest posts lists.

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Gaia and Integral

Adastra: I never felt that, in practice, Zaadz as a whole was particularly integral - in the sense that the average center-of-gravity of users on the site was hovering around integral altitudes.  The CoG seemed (according to my subjective impression) to be more along the lines of green.   That impression has not changed with the transition to Gaia.

My impression was and is the same.

I think I would appreciate hearing your (collective you, yo; Lower-Quandrant feedback please!!) impressions of the difference between 'Team Z' and 'Team G', as from where I sit, that hasn't substantially changed. It's certainly true that I'm responsible for a 'mere' division now, rather than Brian's being in charge of a whole company, but the way I've chosen to intrepret this is that in the same way that Brian was ultimately accountable to his investors and board of directors (as well as the Team and community), I'm accountable to the rest of Gaiam (ditto). So Gaia exists within a different business ecology / environment than Zaadz, but the same general rules apply: as long as I can meet the goals laid out for me (just as Brian needed to) how this division and community operate are up to me.

Does this help at all? And again, I'd love to hear what if 'feels like' (or how it appears) from your side. :)

Re: Gaia and Integral

OK, this is interesting.  For some reason, I've never been able to wrap my brain around what exactly your role is, Siona, but if you're saying you're essentially the same as what Brian was for Zaadz, then I'll be able to contextualize things a bit better.

So yes, I think your comment about masculine and feminine types (and agency vs. communion) could account for at least part of what I've been feeling since Brian left.

I'll have to give this all some more thought now.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Gaia and Integral

Grey: Yes, and I will apologize personally because it's taken me some time to get comfortable with this. Brian was more obviously into being a personality with HIS vision, while I'm more comfortable in a behind-the-scenes, pick-up-the-coffee-cups, make-sure-everyone's-needs-are-attended-to role, not the “here's how we're going to change the world!” I certainly have my own personal feelings on the best way to bring about a more positive future–my vision is around I'm all about reminding people not to follow some outside call, but to get still and comfortable in trusting the urging in their OWN hearts (which, when push comes to shove, is really not that different than the call of the world as a whole ;). And this calling is different depending on where you are on the spiral, or what area is being activated. I'm okay with that.

Still, I'm realizing I DO need to step up and be a bit more assertive in making my role / authority / position clear, and that a different form of leadership than the 'servant' sort I'm used to might be necessary.

Re: Gaia and Integral

Hmmm… yeah, that's a tough one. And maybe that is largely what I've been sensing, a sudden vacuum on the masculine side of things. Good leadership does need both. “Behind every successful man…” and all that. ;-)

So yeah, maybe now that you are “the Man”, so to speak, you need to bring out the masculine side a little bit more, without denying your feminine core, of course. Alternatively, you could rely on a more agentic type on your team to fill the void and convey the more agentic part of your vision, but then there's the risk that that person will be perceived as the leader, rather than you.

I suppose pretty much by definition a leader “leads”, huh? And that's a pretty agentic thing to do. What about within the Gaia team? Does the rest of the team understand your vision and where you want to go and are they all united around this common goal? Or is there a certain lack of agentic direction there, too? If I had to guess, I'd imagine there is a degree of lack of direction there, too, because I would expect to sense that united energy trickling down into the community, but I don't really. Not much anyway. But maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe your approach to your team is entirely different from your approach to the community?

And maybe I'm getting too personal…. ;-)

Anyway, must ponder some more….

With love,
~G

Re: Gaia and Integral

Grey: Again, I am interested only in leading people back to their own hearts, which is, perhaps, a different form of leadership and vision than most of us are used to in our masculine culture. I feel quite confident in playing a masculine role, but frankly, in standing as a woman in a place of power, I'm far more interested in shifting the energy there rather than molding myself to fit a more traditional approach.

To my mind (or from where I sit) the community as a whole does have a different feel than it did as Zaadz, and the qualitative shift is the result of the 'energy trickling down.' I do agree, though, that this vision and message could be communitcated more strongly within the site and made more clear to visitors. So I'll commit, this summer, to placing more attention there.

Happy pondering! I'll look forward to what comes up. :)

Re: Gaia and Integral

Yeah, that's interesting and could be a really great thing, but… hmmm… it seems to me that management of the site and leadership of that team is qualitatively different from leading the community, and it's difficult for me to talk about “Gaia and Integral” without making this distinction. And for example, I can see how ”only leading people back to their own hearts” can be a good approach for the community (and could even be seen as an agentic sort of leadership towards a communion-related goal), but I'm finding it hard to see how that would work well for management of the site, which seems to need to be much more oriented towards the achievement of agentic goals.

And I can imagine that you may not be interested in bringing your Gaia-Team management style into question in this “public” setting, but since the issue came up now in connection with how the recent site change came about….

Anyway, let's maybe set aside the masculine/feminine issue for now. What about holacratic leadership?

So like in the case of this semi-private pod issue, it also seemed to me that a change had been made that very much affected semi-private pods without the perspectives of the semi-private pod community being taken into account (i.e. it didn't appear to be “decision by consent”). Now, that doesn't mean you needed necessarily to check with us first, but I would have expected you to have a better feel for what our needs are. Not that I'm accusing you of anything. I'm sure you may have been convinced that you were doing something we would have liked, and mistakes obviously can happen. I'm just pointing out other reasons that the move seemed less than integral to me and tended to support my feelings concerning a slide down into flatland.

So from my own limited perspective, I saw a change that arbitrarily favored public and fully open over semi-private and more controlled (i.e. that favored breadth over depth), as well as a decision that was made without taking all reasoned perspectives into account. And again, this isn't an accusation. It's just my own perception of the situation (before you explained your reasoning), which is presented in the interests of discussing “Gaia and Integral” in general.

Maybe in terms of managing the community (and site design related to that), I'd like to see more “aggressive” support for depth of communion. So that would mean, for example, providing more and better tools for pod moderators and just generally making it clear throughout the community that depth of heart-centered communion is what you're after, so that when you do things that may seem elitist to some, it can be supported by this openly declared and frequently reiterated desire to favor depth over span (span, too, but not at the expense of depth).

Right now, a lot of the community is more in pluralistic “breadth mode” naturally enough (hence some of the negative reactions to semi-private pods), and many times, it seems to me, site management tends to cater more to that need (like the fact that there are virtually no moderating tools that are readily available to pod moderators other than sending messages and booting members… and don't even get me started on the whole seeds thing! ;-).

So if your vision for Gaia is now “Let's deepen the world”, then let's pursue that communion-centered goal with all the agentic drive we can muster! :)

Well, it's way past my bedtime (I'm still jetlagged after my trip back home to CA), so I'll (try to) sleep on all this and may come back with more thoughts tomorrow.

'Nite,
Grey

Re: Gaia and Integral

Thank you, Grey.

Re: Gaia and Integral

I don't think that the Gaia community needs to be all integral, obviously enough I suppose (or I wouldn't be here ;-). I would, however, like to feel that the site is being designed and managed in an “integrally-informed” (in the broader sense of the term - i.e. the people designing and managing the site don't have to have ever actually heard of “Integral Theory” or Ken Wilber) manner.

I came to (then) zaadz due to some strategically placed ads where I had assumed the web site to be managed by those “integrally-informed” types of folks.

It did not have an instant flavor of integral to me, and furthermore, my first request to join this pod received a reply of “don't call us, we'll call you.”  Which seemed to me a bit of a “green” flavor that frankly sat ill on my palate.

So, it was nothing to do with integral that kept me around.  If it had not been for me being in an extenuating place under extenuating circumstances where the warmth and connection of zaadznowgaia had not been appealing, I may have departed since I was seeking an “integral” place.

To answer Siona's Questions:

1)  There are clearly members of this community who feel they are integral.  There are others who seem to obviously display signs of second tier thinking.

2)  Integral to me - wow, that is a hard one.  There's a vast difference between knowledge of AQAL (and tolerance of those exploring/espousing the theory) and those who seem to understand, embody, and apply AQAL in their daily lives.  To me, both categories and all of the shades in between are important.

3)  Not exactly certain as to what you infer by “integral as a whole.”

4)  I believe it is very important to sustain integral spaces. 

5)  It seems to me that much of the original zaadz vision has perhaps been lost because it seems to have shifted. 

“Our Plan. Ours involves Conscious Capitalism infused with Spirituality and a healthy dose of Enthusiasm, Love, Service, Inspiration, Passion, Humor and Teamwork. People CRAZY enough to think they can change the world, Courageous enough to do something about it, AND Committed enough to stick to it when they feel like giving up.

Weâ€^TMre in the process of building THE most inspired community of people in the world…social networking with a purpose, a community of seekers and conscious entrepreneurs circulating wisdom and inspiration and wealth and all that good stuff. We're passionate about inspiring and empowering people to bring their dreams to life, learning and growing and getting paid to do what they love, using their greatest gifts in the greatest service to the world. (And having fun in the process!)”

The shift seems to be in that the plan emailed to me when I joined (from Brian, of course), seemed to morph into a plan with a green emphasis.  This is not to say the Gaia Team is leading or creating this - rather, just a general sway of those that frequent the site and an acceptance of such.  Also, in this election year, it seems a clear lean in a particular political direction seems apparent - and if you are not leaning with that crowd (not to infer leaning the opposite direction; I refer to purely sans any lean) some mean green undercurrent seems to be involked.

Regardless, the shift seems to be there.  Like Grey, I haven't the time nor the inclination to appropriately assess this “feeling” from a quantitative or even broad qualitative perspective.  Hence, I haven't attempted to actually do or say much about it.  Yet, since we are througing perspective around with feelings, I feel fine about being honest about my observations.

.

Re: Gaia and Integral

Thank you, jeepdog. (And warm hug, too. It's been too long since we've chatted. :) Getting the sense of what it's felt like, again, to be a part of this community through the change is so helpful to me and I appreciate your honesty and openness about that sense.

As an aside, it's been interesting to me moving to Boulder and getting acquainted with real-life communities of individuals who actively identify as being integral and who enjoy speaking the language and so on. It's like this Group come to life. 

I think that part of what I'm concerned with is keeping this community alive and resonant with the sense that you mentioned–that is, infused with a certain warmth and connection. Integral is important to me and certainly has shaped my understanding of the world, but I think that the language and analyses can be alienating to strangers to the topic. Once people are brought into this space and feel comfortable exploring and discussing their values and dreams and prejudices and assumptions, that, to my mind, is when they can begin to touch edges and, should they choose, grow in the integral sense of the term.

Re: Gaia and Integral

I've got a semi-related question for those of you who identify as integralites or who find integral theory attractive / important to our future, based a bit in a conversation I had with Paul Ray not long after coming to Boulder. What are your thoughts on the emergent 'cultural creatives' phenomenon he's identified? Do you see this group or 'culture' as just 'Green' (in the SDi sense) or do you agree with Ray's voicing of it as an 'Integral Culture'? And, just out of curiosity, how do you score on the 'cultural creatives' questionnaire?

I ask in part because I find Ray's (admittedly broader) definition to be much more accessible when it comes to setting a context and speaking or discovering a community of others interested in conscious communtity than the 'integral culture' voiced by what I'll fondly refer to as Wilberites. I recognize, completely, that the latter is necessarily more nuanced, but I was curious as to whether those who identified with the AQAL integral would find Ray's community appealing.

And no, I don't think it's an either / or. :)

Re: Gaia and Integral

Yes, I would.

I think that once one gets over their Wilberite “specialness,” it's more fun, actually, being a part of a larger group. It's lonely at the “top” or, at the last train station, rather. And in isolation is not where great ideas get disseminated.

One thing I'm aware of more and more is the skeletal nature of Wilber's framework. It's really up to us and future generations to fill that out. The natural tendency to” exclude” rather than “include” of the pioneers is a bit too strong at the moment. There are a lot of people in the integral movement who only include what makes sense to them personally, rather than seeing a larger picture. (You ascenders, you know who you are!)

For that and other reasons, I do see the larger demographic as more useful as a force to be reckoned with.

Liz

Re: Gaia and Integral

Siona: What are your thoughts on the emergent 'cultural creatives' phenomenon
he's identified? Do you see this group or 'culture' as just 'Green' (in
the SDi sense) or do you agree with Ray's voicing of it as an 'Integral Culture'?

It looks like his cutoff for “Integral” includes quite a bit of Green altitude, but yeah, I'd say it also includes second tier.  I only skimmed the article, but it looks like most of what he says refers mostly to Green and Teal, such as his distinction between “Green CC” and “Core CC”, respectively, although it looks like his “Core CC” would probably include some “high Green/almost Teal”, too.

Siona: And, just out of curiosity, how do you score on the 'cultural creatives' questionnaire?

Hmmm… seems like a pretty blunt instrument to me, but I scored a 14 out of 18, FWIW.

Siona: I was curious as to whether those who identified with the AQAL integral would find Ray's community appealing.

Sounds like a pretty close parallel of the Gaia community to me! ;-)

I also see that the article is pretty old in Integral Theory terms (12 years!), so I'd be curious to see if he's fine-tuned his scale and definitions at all since then… [checking web site…] although judging from his web site it doesn't look like he has.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Gaia and Integral

WRT “Cultural Creatives” in particular, Ken came down quite hard on them somewhere, in the sense of vigorously differentiating them from the Integral worldivew, pointing out all sorts of Green and (if I am recalling correctly) not just non-Integral but actual anti-Integral characteristics of the CC.

It pretty well convinced me, at the time. But I can't at all remember which book (it was a book, I'm almost certain, as I have accessed very little else) this was in. Maybe someone else remembers. I haven't taken the “test” for CC.

And I'm sorry I retained none of the specifics, just the conclusion. Typical of me….

I don't have anything useful to contribute to the rest of the exchange here, just following along. I am not sensitive to a change in the color of the atmosphere from Z to G, because I mostly ignore atmospheres in general, because most of them are alien to me, and I just do my thing as best as I can wherever I am, and the only thing I am really aware of is how comfortable I am or am not, in the atmosphere. I'm here because this is one of the least alien atmospheres I have ever found, but I still feel like an outsider or heretic wrt the majority of beliefs, attitudes, approaches, worldviews I encounter here. Just there are more individuals I feel more similar to here, than most any other place except maybe our local Ken Wilber-related community.

Individual people, yes, I could describe them, but a collective summary of so many individuals, harder. And the Team's functioning, I don't see as markedly different. The rhetoric, the slogans, yes, much Greener, than before, as has been discussed elsewhere.

Well that's more than I thought I could say.

Very appreciative of your launching this discussion here, Grey and Siona !

Loving Namaste,
OM Bastet

Re: Gaia and Integral

I'm here because this is one of the least alien atmospheres I have ever found, but I still feel like an outsider or heretic wrt the majority of beliefs, attitudes, approaches, worldviews I encounter here.

This made me want to just hug you, OM. I've got the opposite affliction, in that it's rare for me to find an atmosphere that I'm not comfortable in (this is perhaps because being an outsider feels profoundly and sweetly familiar to me ;), but I think I understand.

And thanks to Grey and Liz for chiming in on the CC topic. I liked Ray's differentiation of the Green Cultural Creatives and the Core Cultural Creatives and thought the latter described the general membership of this place well; I was curious, though, whether those who identified as integral cottoned to this sort of description (or at least could handle being included within it).

As to Gaia being more 'green', well, that feels win-win to me:

“Nonetheless, the more people at the green wave, the more people are ready to make the leap into the hyperspace of second-tier consciousness, where truly integral approaches to the world's problems can be conceived and implemented.”

;)

Re: Gaia and Integral

At the risk of heading off topic (does Ray's 'Integral Culture' count as being part of the integral dialog?), I did love this fellow's response.