Gaia: The Integral Pod - Integral Basics - Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://melv.gaia.com — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:33:51 GMT

well i just started reading this discussion, and Arthur's words eloquently express what i feel and think about the subject of ego's.
Sometimes the constant obsession about relinquishing one's ego seems to also breed a fair amount of very subtely big ego's - the shadow being quashed and repressed and popping out unseen as it only can.
What is enlightenment? Good question, but im knowhere near it yet, but i still feel a massive amount of (well on a good day) growth and progress - it almost sounds like dismissing the second tier as not enlightened enough is just another form of dismissing a part of the spiral.
I think its down to the person who themselves decide that integral thought makes sense, but to then make sure they in fact walk the territory, explore it, and yes the map looks very very different to the territory.

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://my-head.gaia.com — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:46:05 GMT

In order that Ken Wilber's 70% moves to the Second Tier - he has suggested the concept of - religion alone being able to serve as the "great conveyor belt" for humanity and its stages of growth - I have further proposed elsewhere that in order to "Transcend & INCLUDE" - that it must be the STANDARDS of RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY & CAPABILITY which MUST form the basis of a simplistically concieved conveyor belt of implementation.

In the context of ALL that has been raised in this thread - and the many many others which have been planted from the seeds of our minds - Is that NOT the mechanism which we @zaadz are trying to establish to change the world ?

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://geomo.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:36:00 GMT

I totally dig what you're getting at here, Sonia.

Early in my search for some understanding of this world, I read a book titled Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Really well done. I haven't followed up on the author, Robert Wright, but I think I'll now have to check his website, which is linked to the book title.

I think Wilber comes to similar conclusions as Wright. In Wilber's words (paraphrased), "the stock market of the Kosmos keeps going up." This is the essence of the non-zero sum game, which Wright uses to describe the development of humanity from family, clan, tribe, chiefdom, nation, state (or something like that). He then goes on to make the case that it is the nature of life to develop in such ways, including development of single cell microbes into colonies into organisms, etc. I don't recall if Wilber has ever commented on or referenced the work, but it's worth a look.

Another issue with regards to collectives as opposed to individuals that was once the topic of an IN dialogue has to do with social holons being somehow distinctly different than individual holons. This is not the same as the lower quadrants being part of the individual holon, according to Ken. I believe his claim is that social holons themselves are special cases of holons because they do not have upper and lower quadrants, but instead only left and right. The example is that the dog is a social holon of cells, and when the dog moves all the cells move, but the cells can't move the dog no matter how hard they try. My view is that this is a weak argument, but it does make an interesting point.

Maybe what you are getting at has to do with the nature of social holons not having the same kind of upper/lower relationship as individuals. Like it or not, I am subject to the whims of global humanity. At the same time, as an individual, what power do I have to change the course of the entire global community? Alone, it appears I cannot. I suppose it would require a large enough social holon of like-minded individuals to move things in a different direction.

This reminds me, if I am not mistaken, of one of Wrights points. I think he asserts (maybe it was something else I read) that eventually there will really be a dominance of NGO's, and similar to the notion of six-degrees-of-separation, we will all be bound together by membership in a few predominant NGO-type movements, rather than our current division as various nations, cultures, ideologies, etc. We'll see.

Thanks for your contribution, and for giving me a distraction from my meditation which I am now going to start 30 min later than I was 30 minutes ago. See! You changed my world;-)

Keith

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:32:45 GMT

Yes, Siona, I hope you'll stay with this. I need to think about your latest (and wait until I'm feeling less brain-dead) but will get back to it. Thanks for engaging in a fun and fascinating conversation.

Yar!thur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:11 GMT

Siona: Please don't get shy on us now! This is good stuff.

As a total aside, autism is treatable and often curable if treated early enough. I believe Arthur was framing the question with that in mind.

Liz

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://siona.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:51:48 GMT

Ooh. Questions for which I have no answers! Children develop; yes, as do adults. And yes, children come down with autism, leukemia, and suicidal depression. And yes, I would advocate treating such conditions. But I would, first of all, want to treat the individual, not the symptom, and, second of all, want to look at the environment that contributed to their discomfort. I don't want to get bogged down in the details of the examples you chose (autism, for instance, is generally understood to be incurable, as well as an illness brought on by "environmental toxins"; suicidal depression, too, is heavily correlated with the alienation of contemporary life; and even leukemia is associated with radiation and certain chemicals that we originally brought into use because we thought they'd better our lives), but citing illnesses that are more the product our of modern-day attempts toward progress isn't the most helpful approach. ;) In short, I would rather remove the impediments to development -- be they psychological or environmental -- than I would attempt to manipulate the individual into "developing appropriately."

Here's the thing. It's one thing to deal with the relative, individual case-by-case bases of diseases we've seeing millions of times. We can say a little, and do something to ease, biological illnesses. We can even work some with psychological issues, although, again, these problems are often the result of individuals struggling to develop healthfully in a larger structure that's not amenable to their path. But when it comes to the growth of cultures? Of whole societies? It seems absurd to pretend we might even have a clue as to what might be going on. Yes, we can say that there are connections and relationships between we as individuals and the societies we live in. Yes, there are certain patterns we can point to. But societies are not individuals. People can develop psychological problems; societies can not. And while they may very well have to contend with analogous issues, I'm not sure it's within our capacity to even hypothesize about what these might be. We can still only barely grasp the complexities of, say, the capitalist system in which we now live. We can still only barely fathom the vast network of intervening variables that shape the global forces of our own contemporary environment. Understanding, cognitively, the connections between them all would require a near eternity of time and space far, far beyond what we can imagine. And so, given this, I'd rather limit my domain to what I do know, and to what I can, to some degree, control. How can I ease the lives of those around me? How can I see what is most beautiful in them and encourage the emergence of that? How can I keep from imposing my beliefs about what they need on to them, and remain available, if they ask for it, to help?

Anyway. Thank you for allowing me the space to write a bit. I'm interested to see what your feelings are, and a little self-conscious about having gone on so emphatically. So I'll be quiet for a bit. ;)

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:32:39 GMT

Siona: "Furthermore, if it is true that there is something "pathological" about certain value structures, then the solution is not to badger them back to health with intellectual arguments, or by telling them that their world view is wrongheaded or backwards. People who feel that their identity is being threatened do not become more open-minded and more willing to explore other options; they shut down and cling to whatever broken identity they can. So attempting to argue or shout or scold any "pathological" values into changing is bound to backfire and to make the problem worse. Far better to use what Integral is best at - that is, opening perspectives so as to better engage with and understand and meet people at their level - to meet people where they are and to encourage and support them toward healthier, more inclusive, more flexible perspectives. "

I agree with that.

Siona: "I'll just take up your final point. Again, if the evolutionary game can "undermine" itself, than that's just part of the evolutionary game, is it not? Because if the evolutionary game can be "set back," then the unfolding of Spirit must not be a given, and Integral theory must be prescriptive rather than explanatory."

Let me ask you some questions in response: does a human being tend to develop in a certain direction? That is, for example, does a toddler or a teenager tend to evolve in the way they understand and interact with the world - are they going somewhere developmentally? And if so, then are there things that can go wrong with that process? Leukemia, autism, and suicidal depression are all equal manifestations of spirit (which is everything and nothing, the ground of all being etc.) - so if a young child has leukemia, autism, or suicidal depression, would it be more appropriate to try to treat those conditions, or to let them take their course as part of spirit or evolutions instrinsically perfect unfolding?

spiral on,
arthur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://siona.gaia.com — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:05:02 GMT

Thank you again, Arthur, for your lovely and considered response.

I'll just take up your final point. Again, if the evolutionary game can "undermine" itself, than that's just part of the evolutionary game, is it not? Because if the evolutionary game can be "set back," then the unfolding of Spirit must not be a given, and Integral theory must be prescriptive rather than explanatory. And if it is prescriptive, then I, for one, worry about all those voices and bodies and people that haven't weighed in and who are necessarily excluded from the dominant system (currently, global capitalism with a dash of Eastern wisdom; in this way, Integral theory is very much a product of the times) in place. I'm going to worry about what's fueling this ideology. And I'm certainly not about to go running around trying to heal or cure or fix what I see as a pathological disrupt merely to make it better conform to my view of what evolution should be.

Furthermore, if it is true that there is something "pathological" about certain value structures, then the solution is not to badger them back to health with intellectual arguments, or by telling them that their world view is wrongheaded or backwards. People who feel that their identity is being threatened do not become more open-minded and more willing to explore other options; they shut down and cling to whatever broken identity they can. So attempting to argue or shout or scold any "pathological" values into changing is bound to backfire and to make the problem worse. Far better to use what Integral is best at - that is, opening perspectives so as to better engage with and understand and meet people at their level - to meet people where they are and to encourage and support them toward healthier, more inclusive, more flexible perspectives.

Julian's post, at the very top, asked for debate and serious discourse about ways to effect change, and honesty about how fucked up the world really is right now. To my mind, pointing fingers at so-called pathological snags, and demanding that THEY change, is one of those blaming, "it's-them-and-not-me" that just leads to further gridlock. How is this just not a projection of our own discomfort? For me, the most important questions to ask when it comes to the "fucked up" state of the world is how Integral theory can keep itself from contributing to the problem.

;)

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:28:44 GMT

Siona: "What I don't feel I quite understand, though, is, again, the need to protect integral from being misunderstood by a not-quite-there crowd, or to somehow keep the New Age believers from adopting certain tenets. It seems oddly paranoid and controlling, a sort of flip-side to the similarly bizarre desire to “extend” integral in order to “get it off the ground.” I suppose that, in general, I'm a little mystified by those who want to somehow USE integral to intentionally shift people, to turn integral into some universalizing project of mass consciousness raising."

Oh, I see what you're getting at. Well, I would consider a program such as you are outlining here to be a perversion of integral theory/practice - perhaps it might reflect a potential pathology of the second-tier; at any rate, it is certainly not what I would attempt to do at this point. As I understand it, a truly second-tier approach would respect people's right to be at whatever developmental stage they are at; however, to the extent that we could influence the situation, we would want to help people be healthy at their stage of development. I certainly didn't mean to imply that we should try to force green spaces or groups to be second tier - all I mean was, second-tier spaces need to be protected and nurtured for the sake of healthy second-tier development. What this would mean in practice is, for example, if you had a forum or pod formed by a group of people who are congregating there specifically to be around other second-tier people, then that space would need to be protected. However, I wouldn't go into a green forum try to force it to become yellow.

Siona: "My point is more that, if Integral theory is right, and there is a logic to the unfolding of the divine, then we certainly don't need to worry about fixing any pathologies or making sure the human race stays on the track. All we need to do is be concerned with our own integrity and our own personal development; the rest of the world will take care of itself. And if there is a chance that the integral process might somehow get hijacked or perverted by pathological hiccups, and that the work of integral theory is to make sure it stays on a certain correct path, then it must be the case that this universalizing process is somehow contingent on the theory. If this is true, then I'd have to question the project as being merely the latest incarnation of a general Western tendency toward synthetic systematization. In essence, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen, and if not, then it's simple ideology masquerading as something more, so in either case, why be concerned? Again, what's really at stake?"

OK, now this takes us into rather different territory. What's at stake in terms of overall human development? Absolutely nothing - and relatively, everything. From the perspective of Spirit of the Ground of Being, the Mystery - whatever you want to call it - this is all the play of spirit, and no matter how it unfolds, it's all good. And also, evolutionary development will do whatever it's going to do, and that's no big deal.

Or is it? What if we are undergoing a developmental crisis? What if there are pathological aspects of our current situation that might set our development back quite a bit, or even lead to the possible destruction of the human species? I don't have time to go into a lot of detail right now, but let me use boomeritis/pluralitis as an example. Ken and co. claim that pluralitis is actually undermining development up to pluralistic-relativism and beyond, so that it is actually - in its current, pathological form - undermining the evolutionary game at this point. Wouldn't it be good to correct that if we can, so that people can develop at their own pace, instead of being stymied by collective pathologies?

That's all I have time for now...spiral out,
arthur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://siona.gaia.com — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:54:48 GMT

arthur.

That was all brilliantly clear. Thank you! I'll continue with a few points. I loved what you wrote about the traps of the integral crowd being more "interesting" than those of the pluralistic snags; I certainly find the challenge of these, here, at least more intellectually stimulating. And I appreciated, too, your honesty about judging and the temptations of getting lost in dialogue and analysis.

What I don't feel I quite understand, though, is, again, the need to protect integral from being misunderstood by a not-quite-there crowd, or to somehow keep the New Age believers from adopting certain tenets. It seems oddly paranoid and controlling, a sort of flip-side to the similarly bizarre desire to "extend" integral in order to "get it off the ground." I suppose that, in general, I'm a little mystified by those who want to somehow USE integral to intentionally shift people, to turn integral into some universalizing project of mass consciousness raising. This seems to be a bid for hegemony par excellance. I see integral theory as very much a product of this time and place, and in particular the current toy of a certain over-educated, overwhelmingly white, relatively wealthy, spiritually-grasping mentality, and I can't help but worry and wonder at those who are left out of these discussion and practices. But I digress.

My point is more that, if Integral theory is right, and there is a logic to the unfolding of the divine, then we certainly don't need to worry about fixing any pathologies or making sure the human race stays on the track. All we need to do is be concerned with our own integrity and our own personal development; the rest of the world will take care of itself. And if there is a chance that the integral process might somehow get hijacked or perverted by pathological hiccups, and that the work of integral theory is to make sure it stays on a certain correct path, then it must be the case that this universalizing process is somehow contingent on the theory. If this is true, then I'd have to question the project as being merely the latest incarnation of a general Western tendency toward synthetic systematization. In essence, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen, and if not, then it's simple ideology masquerading as something more, so in either case, why be concerned? Again, what's really at stake?

;)

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:35:06 GMT

Great post, Siona.

Siona: "Here's my question. How is Integral any less systemically narcissistic
than the New Agers who think they can visualize a better world into
being? How is the promoting of a wholly inclusive “meta-system” of
reality that encompasses any and all others any different then the
naive, supposedly delusional or pathological “I create my reality” of
The Secret crowd? Yes, the cognitive element of is more advanced. Yes,
the intellectual rationalizations are more complicated. What it comes
down to for me, though, is whether these beliefs change how we act in
the world, and change how we come to understand, and behave toward,
others. Because otherwise, in the end, what does it matter?"

Particular people who call themselves integral may be just as narcissitic as the New Agersyou're referring to; however the integral worldview itself, if it is
accurate, seeks to take into account all truth domains and particular
claims, evaluates them on their own terms, and does not shy away from
taking a stand if one truth or perspective is manifestly more accurate
or meaningful than another - thus in theory the integral worldview
should be more accurate, more comprehensive, and also
much more self-correcting. The "I create my own reality" crowd you refer to
takes their own internal consciousness as the sole arbiter of what is
considered "real." One of the problems with this - and I've known
people who completely fall into this trap - is that they can get so lost
that they have little or no way to get out of that worldview. Try
arguing them out of it or pointing out inconsistencies in their
worldview and at best they will acknowledge that your perspective is
neither more nor less valid than their own.

In saying this I would note a) the "I create my own reality" move is a
pathological expression of the green/pluralistic worldview; b) There
are cognitive traps and distortions that "integral" people fall into as
well - which however, are at least a little more interesting than the
pluralistic traps IMO. :p

Siona: "If these complex debates amount only to us using these explanations and
justifications to avoid doing our own work, and to avoid taking
responsibility for how we are in the world and the judgments we tack on
others, I don't see what good they are. If we allow these fantastic
explanations to get in the way of us being in the world with the real,
living, breathing bodies around us, we've already lost the point. For
me, as soon as the belief system of integral starts interfering our
ability to see what is most essentially human in the eyes of everyone
with whom we share this planet, its started to lose its value."

Total agreement from me - and admittedly, I do tend to talk more
about this stuff than I spend doing rigorous self-work. As for
judging others, I think that is a stage that one naturally goes through
in the early stages of integral, and it is a sub-stage from which I believe and
hope I am starting to emerge. In the past, I was
particularlyjudgemental of pluralistic people - which is predicted by
integral theory as I understand it; you tend to find most odious the
stage you've most recently transcended. And it has been too great
a tendency for me personally to sneeringly look down on "flatlanders"
and "first tier" types. Lately, though, I find myself more
willing and able to look for common ground with people I interact
with. I'm enjoying this change, it's a lot more fun than my
previous, more confrontational (and sometimes dismissive)
approach.

Siona: "Also, I've always been curious about the need to “preserve” integral?
Why worry about it being co-opted by less intellectual rigorous New Age
thought? What's really at stake? I'm serious."

Here is my very serious answer: if we are going to fully enter into,
explore, and extend integral, then there must be places where integral
people can interact with each other. While I fully respect the
right and need of people who are into New Age thought to have their own
spaces for discourse and interaction, I consider it vitally important
for there to be spaces and collectives where integral thought and action is the
standard to which people are expected to adhere - just as, to choose
another example, to get the rational worldview off the ground,
spaces were needed where mythological worldviews would be criticized
and rejected on rational grounds. Hence scientific associations,
clubs, meetings, schools, etc. were created to fill the needs of the
new worldview.

Does this make sense to you?

arthur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://siona.gaia.com — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:28 GMT

I've been meaning to jump in here for some time; there's some great stuff on this board. Julian? Brilliant. Matthew too. And ditto all the rest of you. It's a treat finding this quality of dialogue.

And . . .

(Before I start, please take this in the light-hearted tone in which it's intended. Integral Theory got my intellectual rocks off for too many years for me not to have developed some feelings for it. ;) )

Here's my question. How is Integral any less systemically narcissistic than the New Agers who think they can visualize a better world into being? How is the promoting of a wholly inclusive "meta-system" of reality that encompasses any and all others any different then the naive, supposedly delusional or pathological "I create my reality" of The Secret crowd? Yes, the cognitive element of is more advanced. Yes, the intellectual rationalizations are more complicated. What it comes down to for me, though, is whether these beliefs change how we act in the world, and change how we come to understand, and behave toward, others. Because otherwise, in the end, what does it matter?

If these complex debates amount only to us using these explanations and justifications to avoid doing our own work, and to avoid taking responsibility for how we are in the world and the judgments we tack on others, I don't see what good they are. If we allow these fantastic explanations to get in the way of us being in the world with the real, living, breathing bodies around us, we've already lost the point. For me, as soon as the belief system of integral starts interfering our ability to see what is most essentially human in the eyes of everyone with whom we share this planet, its started to lose its value.

And the same goes for any other system, be it Christianity or New Age channeling or neo-Marxism or Zen.

Also, I've always been curious about the need to "preserve" integral? Why worry about it being co-opted by less intellectual rigorous New Age thought? What's really at stake? I'm serious.

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:00:28 GMT

love the inquiry keith. i plan to start a new thread on "enlightenment vs. the ego." let's chat there....

have a great weekend!
~julian

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://geomo.gaia.com — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:19 GMT

"First I'd like to point out there is nothing intrinsically “wrong” with ego"

Oh yeah, Arthur? Well, I think you're wrong:-p

Actually, I don't know whether there is or isn't something wrong with ego, and I don't think it can be "eliminated." I believe an integrated ego is "better" than a disintegrated one, but I think that's not the same as transcending the inherent limitation of the ego. If one transcends "exclusive identification with the ego," does that mean one identifies with something beyond ego? What is that? I would argue that if it is anyway a limited identification, it is still ego. It might be "higher ego," but all limited, or separated sense of self is not Self.

Anyway, I think what we are talking about are complementary aspects of the same path. In the context of this thread, I might say:

If you want to be and effective agent of change in the world, purify (aka integrate) your ego. If you want to really change the world, be the world (aka no longer identify with any limited causes, higher or not, altruistic or selfish, that are the nature of the ego). You can only change yourself. If you identify yourself as an ego, you can change your ego (for better or worse). If you identify with all Being, you can change that. Both happen incrementally. There is also this unshakable sense that to be the "best" agent of change in the context of the current zeitgeist, than integrating the ego might habituate (create a Kosmic groove?) certain beneficial structures of consciousness, so that when the ego-disidentified being emerges, it will naturally be an agent of change. (probably didn't describe that very well)

Julian, what makes you think enlightenment is a red herring? I might agree, if what you mean is the popular notion of enlightenment is what you describe. In my view, most contemporary explanations of what enlightenment is are really just higher egoity. That would indeed be a red herring.

Anyway, this shit just unfolds itself anyway (as we appear to be witnessing with the developments at I-I). No worries.

Keith

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:37:09 GMT

"thanks for going there. i appreciate the chutzpa to be anti integral on the integral pod!

let me say right off that i think the concept of enlightenment is a big ass RED HERRING.

i will go into this in a more detailed post when i get a second."

Yeah, kudos to Keith for that also. Reasoned dissent and constructive criticism are good.

Julian, I was wondering if you were going to return to that idea, "enlightenment is a big ass red herring" (a great thread title, if you ask me). I partially agree with you. It's a big ass red herring if people mean you arrive at a state of enlightenment, full stop, and no further movement is possible - especially odious is the idea that once you've "arrived" then every word and deed of yours is perfectly in alignment with the Ground of Being, and therefore beyond reproach or argument. One of the great things about integral is the idea that you can be God manifesting as a complete asshole - something to be avoided for sure - or just as someone who still needs a lot of work in various areas. I also love the emphasis on incarnating as the spirit of evolution unfolding, which Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen in particular keep emphasizing.

I don't think that "enlightenment" is a meaningless or false concept, just that it is usually interpreted in a limited or distorted way. For example, I think it makes sense to talk about oneness with all phenomena on various levels, or with the ground of being, or of nondual enlightenment. Perhaps you meant "red herring" in the sense that it is a mistake to chase after it, rather than that it is meaningless?

Anyway, feel free to start another thread on this if you like and perhaps I'd have more to say about it. Hmm, this could be a great topic for the sadly neglected "Chapel Perspicacious" board.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:14:28 GMT

"A secret admirer"

Mascha - not so secret anymore, lol. :p Glad you and Julian liked my scribbles.

arthur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:45:07 GMT

Me too, Julian. Arthur, that post is a thing of beauty, I just read it again for the third time. You continue to spiraliciously rock, young man. A secret admirer

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:50:55 GMT

loved this response arthur!

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:00:55 GMT

"I agree that we shouldn't change the names of threads, but I tend to think that an occasional joke in a thread is fine - especially if it is related to the topic at hand. Then again, whatever way the moderator calls it, someone will have a different opinion."

Hey Pelle

You have a point - there was some relevance to the topic; I guess the subject heading change put it a little over the top for me, and as you say it comes down to a judgement call; it might have been better to just change the subject heading back to the original.

The last forum I participated in regularly for a long time had a strong anti-moderation of any sort vibe, IMO - which was way too green for me. Here I won't be into the "anybody post anything anywhere anytime" style, but also please call me out if you think I'm going overboard in the other direction.

BTW, the thread I started this morning on the Adyashanti dialog has a lot of relvence for this thread, I think - in terms of what integral/second tier is all about and what makes it valuable.

spiral on,
arthur

Re: Second Tier? Zaadz and Changing the World...

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:00:50 GMT

intteresting point mary.

this is however a site dedicated to offering alternative and (wilber says) erroneous interpretations of his work.

i have spent a lot of time on the forums there and am also familiar with the whole ken/frank saga, wyatt earpy et al....

as far as the article.

again some good points, but what i am discussing as being emblematic of the new age is more than a holistic sense of inter-connectedness, it's the regressive, magical and delusional ways thaose ideas get extrapolated - something of course that integral theory strives not do by sheer virtue of it's intellectual depth and operational principles...