Gaia: The Integral Pod - Chapel Perspicacious - Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://mqs.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:17:57 GMT

Guest,

Very interesting post. It made me think in a way I had not previously entertained. You're not such a difficult prick after all.

You said, "I've asked myself these questions. "How often in my own evolution has there been so many people open to new possibilities at one time? How often has there been this many people willing to listen to anything to do with anything spiritual? How often will I get such a chance to maybe make some real change that will benefit us all?
Have you ever considered those questions?

Yes, a very simple and elegant perspective indeed.

best,
Michael

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:09:02 GMT

Thank you guest - you said that a lot better than me, but my point all along, regarding this movie, is that YES! people are paying attention to these things.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://guest.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:57:53 GMT

G'day.
The Secret, no I haven't seen it and yes I will, when some kind soul gives me a free copy for my viewing pleasure (Now, there's a little secret right there. Be patient and view it for free)

I've noticed that a lot of the good folk here have openly laughed at it and dismissed the material out of hand, and from what I've seen and read it would seem for good reason.

However, I'd like to send my heart and love out to the unknowing, naive people who are getting drawn into what appears to be piss poor New Age garbage. And speaking, from what I feel is my highest self, I'm suggesting that rather than openly laughing at the film and peering down our noses at the folk a little further down the Spiral, who are caught in its grasp, that perhaps we use this film as an opportunity to teach, guide and uplift these folk along to higher realizations.

I see this movie as a massive net that has been cast out capturing millions of people and opening a door, or flicking a switch in their way of thinking to something different, or bigger than where they were before the film was released.
I see it as a small awakening in the hearts and minds of these innocent people, even if their initial reason for embracing the film is because they want more riches in their lives, more money, more love, more of life as they see it from the level that they are currently on. Lets face it, it's only natural.

As I constantely remind myself, I too, along with all of us here started at Beige and have slowly climbed along through the colors over time, and as I reflect back on my own evolution I see and clearly remember the times I sought the easy path, the times I read books that told me to just sit on my arse and imagine that the Universe owed me a living and a good time. Which is just about where those good folk who are enraptured in the movie are about right now.

I'd like to remind myself and anyone here that might be interested, that these people are pure potential and are really quite close to some real spiritual awakening and consciousness. I'd also like to point out that there are some brilliant minds right here in this pod who have the ability, the knowledge and hopefully the love to offer a guiding hand and help this amazing amount of potential unfold.

Let's see, if one million souls get something out of this film and it triggers that light within them and they start to think just a little more about what life is about. That would be a good thing.
Now, let's say, 10% get really into it and start to feel an awakening in them, (as we all did when we were at that level, and we all were, without exception) that would equate to some 100,000 thousand souls moving up the Spiral. That is a massive gravitational shift in integral thinking and I'm thinking that would be a wonderful thing.

So, rather than slinging shit at the movie and the people who dig it I'm suggesting that we use the film as a platform to assist as many people as we possibly can to higher levels of thinking and understanding. Don't get caught up with the content of the film and judging it's worthiness, that's really only thinking small and petty thoughts. Integral thinking is much bigger than that, or it is in my eyes.

I've asked myself these questions. "How often in my own evolution has there been so many people open to new possibilities at one time? How often has there been this many people willing to listen to anything to do with anything spiritual? How often will I get such a chance to maybe make some real change that will benefit us all?
Have you ever considered those questions?

Strike while the iron is hot.

All the best,
Guest.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:19:36 GMT

I found a great article that sums up how I feel about The Secret; please check it out: Beyond The Secret.

arthur

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:16:08 GMT

ah yes i followed the pavlina excitement too and found his take quite in line with the regressive new age hoopla i have been critiquing - i don't actually think you can get behind this movie or it's one idea without being caught in the shadow side of green narcissism and magical thinking - it's by definition what it is all about!

hardly integral.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://pelle.gaia.com — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:52:44 GMT

Reposted from the Multiplex:

I believe Steve Pavlina has an integral cognition, as well as a lot of integral ideas, but that he sometimes becomes trapped in green value structures.

Recommending "The Secret" is obviously a mistake, and I think part of the reason he makes that mistake is that he tries to translate the ideas from the movie upwards into turquoise.

The following quotes from his website show that his way of thinking is far from the narcissism of green with a magenta underbelly:

So within a subjective belief system, are other people conscious like me too?

People are not conscious. Only consciousness is conscious. So in a sense, there are no other conscious people. There is only one consciousness, and all the people you perceive exist within it. And that consciousness is who and what you are. There's only one consciousness, so there's only one you.

..........

The reality is that you are indeed the only one who's conscious. But that YOU who's conscious isn't your body-mind. Your body-mind as well as all the other bodies you perceive exist within your consciousness. There's only one consciousness, and that is your real identity. Everything else exists within you. That's why you perceive only one consciousness. That's the only consciousness that exists.

Steve obviously needs AQAL as a framework to support his integral tendencies and stay clear from green :)

Pelle

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:01:32 GMT

Hey, did anybody look at the blog list (arranged by altitude) in the February 2007 Holons? They list two for the Turquoise level; the second one seems pretty cool, but the first one (Steve Pavlina's Personal Development blog) seems highly dubious to me - the current entry starts out this way:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m delighted to present this exclusive interview with James Ray, President and CEO of the multi-million dollar corporation James Ray International and cast member of the increasingly popular movie The Secret.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you follow the link to The Secret, you'll find a gushy review by Steve Pavlina that culminates in an offer to sell you the Secret DVD at a discounted price, with FREE bonus materials thrown in.

This does not look Turquoise to me. Comments?

arthur

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://timelody.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:25:12 GMT

Hey everyone,

I had a dream last night (this morning) where the same, very weird (slightly fat, bald, gaps in his teeth) guy appeared twice throughout the "narrative" and it turned out he was an active member of one of the genius IQ organizations and it was revealed that he (and some of his IQ buddies) conceived The Secret . . . part of the "revelation" at that moment in the dream was that he was extremely IQ smart, but slightly maniacal otherwise (i.e. low development in social lines, etc.)

Is this true? Did my dream unlock The Secret's secret? That's what it seemed like.

At any rate, I thought it would at least be funny . . .

(Beware slightly fat, bald IQ guys showing up at strange susrprise birthday parties . . . although I guess that goes without saying . . .)

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://riversong.gaia.com — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:16:21 GMT

Julian has posted on his blog the antidote to the Secret. I agree with him, but better yet perhaps, watch Little Miss Sunshine!

And Mascha, I see you over on the other thread emerging from under your rock, and floating around over the roof tops like Mary Poppins. What are we to make of that, you little rascal!

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://pelle.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:17:38 GMT

Oh and thanks Jane for posting it.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://pelle.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:11:31 GMT

Another spot-on article by RAM.

The forth and second last paragraphs are perfect summaries of how to avoid throwing any babies out with the bathwater, while still getting rid of all the water. Sweet.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 06:46:20 GMT

Here's another interesting article on scientific research conducted with the cooperation of Tibetan monks, this time practicing tummo...

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://klarelim.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 06:07:52 GMT

excellente post. Something that I been really needing to investigate further.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:20:37 GMT

I find that I can read pretty much anything Robert writes, over and over again, and get new meaning every time. Thanks.

Liz

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://riversong.gaia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:06:52 GMT

Here is brilliant and clear Robert Augustus Masters writing on this topic(even if unbeknownst to himself)....

January 16, 2007

SELF-REFLECTION & IDIOT RESPONSIBILITY

Self-reflection is not always what it purports to be. First of all, so much depends on who or what is actually doing the reflecting or introspecting -- for example, if our egoic conditioning is running the show, there won't be much clarity or depth, given the density of the lens. Our conditioning -- whether gross or subtle, superficial or deep, mundane or metaphysical -- will then tend to make the picks; if we identify with it, then we'll think that we are making the picks, all but oblivious to our case of mistaken identity.

Secondly, even if we are getting a relatively clear read on what's happening, we may nonetheless frame it in a way that simply reinforces habits in which we are still entrapped -- for example, if we are dependent on others' approval or are prone to being overly self-critical, this will likely turn our apparent self-reflection into not much more than an exercise in self-deception, laced with self-flagellation.

We may think that we're taking an honest look at our part in what has happened -- wanting to see what the situation "says" about us -- but in fact are only assigning too much responsibility (and causal agency) to that part, and too little to others. In letting them off the hook too easily, we simply impale ourselves on our good intentions, perhaps acting as if the resulting pain is an inevitable and even justified consequence of our having fallen short.

And, at the same time, we may feel a certain pride in our apparent willingness to take such a unguarded and probably unflattering look at ourselves, when we are in fact doing something very different -- namely, submitting to our conditioning while acting as if we are not. Such is the essence of idiot responsibility, namely the irresponsible practice of assuming and behaving as if we are being responsible when we'really just taking on --and assuming ownership of -- more responsibility than is actually ours; and such "responsibility" is not necessarily just something which we have taken on ourselves, but can also be inculcated in us by esteemed others.

Just as it's easy to make our relational difficulties mostly about our partner, it's just as easy to make them mostly about us. It all depends on which way our accusatory finger is pointing. If it's aimed at us, the odds are that we are female; if it's not, the odds are that we are male. Why this is so can be partially answered by considering the emotion that's most often overlooked in psychotherapy and spiritual practice: shame. Shame usually feels so unpleasant, so painfully exposing, so mortifying, that we understandably want to get away from it as quickly as possible. A particularly common way of doing so is to convert our shame into aggression -- just think of how often those who have been shamed in a film redirect their energies into getting even or getting revenge.

But aggression is not always other-directed; it can also be self-directed. Many (mostly men) turn their shame-based aggression onto their partner, finding fault with, for example, her delivery of what she has to say, thereby conveniently framing her as the messed-up one; and many (mostly women) turn their shame-based aggression back onto themselves, casting an overly critical eye on their shortcomings, or on how they might have better put across their position or needs, thereby cutting their partner too much slack.

This tendency to take too much of the responsibility (which frequently gets degraded into blame) for our relational difficulties is rooted in a crushed, deflated, or otherwise disempowered sense of self, in which love-deserving me is largely supplanted by "bad" or "not-good-enough" me. Seeing how messed up we supposedly are reinforces this diminished sense of self, even as we try to make up for it by being "good" -- admitting our screw-ups, holding ourselves accountable for them, and so on, but taking this too far. Yes, what bothers us about our partner may say plenty about us as well -- as when what we don't like about them is but a projection of what we don't like about ourself -- but to assume that whatever bothers us about our partner is no more than a reflection of something less than loving in us simply cuts us off from taking needed stands with our partner, leaving us floundering in the excuse-polluted, confrontation-phobic riptides of idiot compassion.

Some may go so far as to assume, in allegiance to the New Age belief that we literally create our reality, that they -- and they alone -- have literally "created" whatever ills or misfortunes come their way, including in relationship. Such a narcissistic view -- me-centered to the extreme, however humbly, and infused with more than a trace of omnipotent fantasy -- not only bypasses the fact that what others around us are doing inevitably impacts and is impacted by what we are doing, but also is shame-inducing, in that it blames us for things over which we may have either no control or less than full control.

If a girl is raped, and we assume that she has "created" it and is therefore responsible for it (thereby saddling her with the dogma of a particularly pernicious variety of idiot responsibility), we are then, however inadvertently, okaying the rape, perhaps even asking (in spiritually sloppy New Age thinking that's marooned from common sense and real compassion) what lessons she is trying to give herself by having chosen to be thus raped. (In the pantheon of dumb questions, this is a top contender, all wrapped up in its distorted, insensitive, emotionally vacant, and disembodied metaphysics.) If our partner is abusing us, and we choose to view this as having been created by us, then we are just doing time in a me-centered hell, cut off from any intimacy with the intersubjective space co-created by our partner and us, turned away from the no-bullshit forcefulness and consequence-delivering fierce compassion that our partner may actually need.

Just as there is idiot compassion (acting as if being unrelentingly nice and avoiding taking needed stands is somehow an act of genuine caring), idiot humility (making a virtue out of playing small and not excelling), idiot tolerance (politically correct acceptance and force-fed egalitarianism), and idiot understanding (the disembodied assumption that knowledge is synonymous with wisdom), there is idiot responsibility -- holding ourselves (or lettiing ourselves be held) overly accountable, as if doing so is an act of integrity, when in fact all we're really doing is setting ourselves up for guilt (after all, if we've "created" our cancer, and we just can't get rid of it, we are failing, aren't we?).

However, we don't so much create our reality, as we create our experience of our reality. Yes, we can have a tremendous impact in certain areas, hugely effecting and altering our reality, but that does not mean that we brought it into being. This is a tricky area, because sometimes we can have such an effect on our world that it seems as if we have actually formed or created it, as when a deadly disease miraculously disappears from us. How we are, and how we think, feel, and act, has a definite effect on our reality -- as both quantum physics and genuine spiritual practice demonstrate -- but there are so many factors at play, so many causes and causes of causes and so on ad infinitum, that we cannot conclusively really say -- let alone prove -- that we, and we alone, create our reality. To assume otherwise is to ignore the contingent nature of our existence. We not only exist in relationship, but through relationship -- which means, in part, that creativity is not a solitary but an inherently collaborative process.

If we say to those who have cancer that they have created it, and ask them why they would choose to do so, and what lessons they are trying to give themselves through making themselves so ill, we have, among other things, vastly oversimplified how things actually happen -- there are so many factors involved in their having cancer that there's no way we can view and take into account all of them -- as well as trying to implant in such people the notion that they must have really screwed up somewhere (beyond obvious inner and outer factors, such as their emotional state and diet) to get so sick, forgetting that many great saints have had cancer, regardless of their degree of illumination.

None of this is to say that we ought not to take full responsibility for what we do with our lives, but that we would do best to only take responsibility for what is our part (which, of course, also takes into account its impact on others). To do more may seem noble or generous, but is really just deflated egoity having its time in the sun, no matter how dark the day. Genuine responsibility does not shame or blame, but simply is the capacity or ability to fittingly respond to what is happening, rather than just reacting to it.

Such responsibility does not fall prey to the inappropriate assuming of agency, but rather stabilizes us, grounding us in real integrity and compassion, preparing us for a deeper life, a life of fully embodied, ever accountable awakening to what we truly are. As we thus awaken, we go beyond belief into self-illuminating experience, no longer seducible by hope (nostalgia for the future) and knowledge, entering a domain where self-reflection is no longer self-deflection and where being responsible is not something we do, but naturally are.

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://geomo.gaia.com — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:16:58 GMT

"If by '.. then we could experience it … in rational terms...' you mean while we're in the non-duaI state, then I completely disagree with you, simply because either one's in it or one isn't, and it is beyond, beyond, beyond the rational mindset … if however you mean we could try and interpret our 'experience' afterwards in rational terms, I do agree."

I would take Lol's analysis further, and say not only that it's beyond rational while in the experience, but even if one were at a rational stage of development, they still would necessarily be unable to experience anything other than a rationalization of that non-dual state and not the state itself. It's no more an accurate representation of the non-dual state than a trans-rational or mythic representation would be. It's not it so it can't be an accurate representation of it. For the rational view, that could just mean explaining it away as some epiphenomenon of brain chemistry. Also, if one were at the non-dual stage, then they could also not experience that stage, as a permanent state, rationally, because it defies and is beyond rationality completely. This, I assume, is why those who are supposed to have developed non-dual stage awareness describe it as ineffable. There is no rational explaination. In my view, which is, unfortunately, merely rational, it doesn't make sense to reduce non-dual awareness to that which can be described rationally and say that's the only way to make sense of it. The point is there is no you to make sense of an it at that point. There is awarness, but nobody to be aware. There may even be some explanation, but nobody doing the explaining and nothing to explain.

My rational interpretation is that much of problem with what Wilber seems to imply, that is that previously realized buddhas can't be as enlightened as currently realized buddhas (I don't care who, just but primary example he uses is Gautama Buddha and the Jeep), it's a confusion of linear and non-linear views of reality. When enlightenment is held to be oneness with all form that is arising right now, that is well and good, but it must be interpreted with an eye on non-linear arising, in which all creation throughout all time in all dimensions, infinitely, dizzyinglingly so, is Oneness. History is included in that Oneness. The future is included in that Oneness. That Ken would be driving a Jeep is included in the Oneness that is arising in the mind of Gautama Buddha. If Ken or me or anybody were one with all that is arising, they would be one with Gautama Buddha, all other buddhas throughout history, all future buddhas on this or other planets in other universes after other and infinitely other big bangs. Oneness is Oneness. And that's me on my rational soapbox;-)

Keith

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://ma-rig-pa.gaia.com — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:38:01 GMT

Hi Arthur,

Thank you for distinguishing stages and states so succinctly ..... I can't argue with your / our Ken's rationale ... yet : ) ... and for that reason I'm very happy to hold it in the ever forward-moving upward-spiralling pending tray ...

I've just got my copy of Integral Spirituality, so I thought I'd better read about the Wilber-Combs Lattice before I attempted to say what I'm going to say next.

82 hours later ...

You see, I'm not entirely convinced by it, and wasn't when I read our Ken explaining it in WIE's "God's Playing a New Game". But I'm also aware I haven't read enough around the subject ... there are always so many extras in the chapter notes and the appendices that I recall others bringing up before, but which I can't remember clearly ... or don't know where to look for them ...

So, a question I have that is open to any integral theorist reading this to answer ... is ... is it the case that integral theory has it that 2000ish years ago an individual couldn't actualise the highest of the levels, structures, stages while/because 99.99% of the world's LL and LR were still at (would it be?) Mythic?

I guess a follow-on question is (and taking into account the prevailing view that there are always individuals at the evolutionary leading edge who may be a level or two ahead of the rest) ... is an individual's tetra-enaction limited in any way by the prevailing world order AQAL matrix? (if that's a lousily worded question I apologise and hope you know what I mean.)

You see, I don't buy it that the Buddha's non-dual realisation was interpreted to himself from or at a prerational perspective, or a rational perspective, or a higher vision-logic perspective ... and so on ... if that's what is being suggested with all this "the difference between horizontal and vertical types of *enlightenment*" theorizing.

The Buddha, or so the story goes, was simply unable to teach anyone anything about what he'd 'realised', and for a period of time just didn't teach. Then he started to teach something that could be understood by the people of that time, first the Four Noble Truths, then other things according to people's differing capacities and propensities. And within this he did find ways to convey his deeper understanding within the context(s) of these differing capacities.

But to get back to your post, Arthur. You said:

If we have a non-dual state experience and we're developed at least to the rational stage of cognitive development, then we could experience it - or interpret it afterwards - in rational terms.

If by ".. then we could experience it ... in rational terms..." you mean while we're in the non-duaI state, then I completely disagree with you, simply because either one's in it or one isn't, and it is beyond, beyond, beyond the rational mindset ... if however you mean we could try and interpret our 'experience' afterwards in rational terms, I do agree.

Speaking personally, I might try and describe a non-dual state 'experience' in rational terms ... or allude to it using, for example, a symbol like the mirror. But the truth is it is really uninterpretable and indescribable ... so it's not possible for me, for example, to truly interpret it to myself from "the rational stage of cognitive development".

And the point surely isn't about having a peak experience then 'interpreting' it afterwards ... the whole point surely is about developing and deepening this non-dual state, if one can, in optimal situations (if that be sitting on a cushion in a quiet room with minimal distractions) and then practising continuing in that state as much as possible in the ordinary-life situations of moving the body, using the voice, and using the mind ... in other words integrating ones ordinary life as much as possible into this state one is developing, without even thinking about interpreting it ... or without it automatically being interpreted or coloured by whatever stage one is at.

And in the non-dual state thoughts and awarenesses naturally come and go, sometimes distracting, but not necessarily ... in any case one can simply rediscover 'it' and return to 'it'... so ... one can have an awareness that this 'state' is just so totally pregnant with what is beyond ones ken ... it's all there ... or at least if we can relate to a 'felt sense of being', then we can relate to a felt sense of it all being there.

I remember a Lama talking about meditation and the non-dual .... he gave the example of the sun and the sun's rays .... our meditation may be analogous to us feeling the warmth of the sun's rays .... all we have to do is follow the rays back to the sun.

I see it that way with non-dual awareness, we enter into it and remain in it as much and as often as we can ... and rather than our relationship to it being dependent on whatever level we might be at, the more we're in it the more our capacity and clarity will naturally deepen and develop.

These are my mutterings and mumblings on the subject.

Best wishes,

Lol

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:56:29 GMT

ma rig pa: "However, if we are in non-dual awareness, even if it isn't a permanent stage development, we are at least in a transrational state, and whatever the deph of that state is, it surely must be informed by the transrational (stage) … wouldn't you agree?"

Wait a minute - isn't this apples and oranges? Rationality is not a state-experience, it's a stage of cognitive development. If we have a non-dual state experience and we're developed at least to the rational stage of cognitive development, then we could experience it - or interpret it afterwards - in rational terms. Similarly if we are developed to transrational cognitive stages, we could experience/interpret it in transrational terms. But if we are still at a pre-rational stage of development, then we could neither experience nor interpret the nondual state in rational or transrational terms.

Nevertheless, we could experience a non-rational state at any stage of development.

Or so it seems to me. :)

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://ma-rig-pa.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:38:01 GMT

Wow ... impressive ... monks and researchers both ... thanks Keith ...

Re: Integral Theory and The New Age: The Secret Movie

http://geomo.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:27:24 GMT

"As to the effects … anecdotal reports they may be, but people do attribute a developing sense of altruistic love and compassion to doing this practice"

Not only is there anectodal evidence, but also EEG evidence that Tibetan Buddhist compassion meditation effects the brain.

Keith