Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Due to problems of scale (which will be explained in a moment) we are going to make IIzaadz “invite only” effective immediately. Other measures will likely be taken in the near future in order to preserve the intended nature of this pod - in brief, to function as a turquoise forum for those interested in integral theory and practice, specifically as defined in the work of Ken Wilber.

For an explanation of “problems of scale” here is a relevant quote from A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy:

…you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations…The fact that the amount of two-way connections you have to support goes up with the square of the users means that the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the less is more pattern, in order to keep associated with one another…

[Clay Shirkey's] favorite pattern is from MetaFilter, which is: When we start seeing effects of scale, we shut off the new user page. “Someone mentions us in the press and how great we are? Bye!” That's a way of raising the bar, that's creating a threshold of participation. And anyone who bookmarks that page and says “You know, I really want to be in there; maybe I'll go back later,” that's the kind of user MeFi wants to have.

You have to find some way to protect your own users from scale. This doesn't mean the scale of the whole system can't grow. But you can't try to make the system large by taking individual conversations and blowing them up like a balloon; human interaction, many to many interaction, doesn't blow up like a balloon. It either dissipates, or turns into broadcast, or collapses. So plan for dealing with scale in advance, because it's going to happen anyway.  - Clay Shirkey, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy

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

with metta,
Turquoise Mod Squad

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

With Metta,

Hey Mod Squad!  Makes sense to me.  Could be a bummer though as I just found you all yesterday ;-)  If it makes a difference on the Invite list…. I'm a <gasp>   ….  lurker!  Any chance of getting a “lurk only” license?  With two young children at home, my time is very limited; however, reading through the posts in the wee hours makes for good entertainment (for this single mom ;-)

Whatever happens…. its all good in my world!

xo  Stacy

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Stacy,

Invite-only means that from now on people can't just press a button and join the pod.


Pelle

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

But they can still read the pod, right, Pelle? And also ask to join, if they really want to post?

Liz

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Appropos of nothing:

Whenever I see the word “IIzaadz”

My brain sees “lizardz”

Don't get me wrong,  I LIKE lizards and other members of the reptilian family.

But when you add the word “scale” to a title referring to Lizardz, well I keep wanting to call a herpetologist.

A pointless post. This thread needed one, and I'm here to serve, and to see how loose these mods are…

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

LOL. pointless. but good point :)

~C

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Hee. That's just too funny. Beck and Cowan have their Spiral Wizards; is the Integral spiral master lizardly instead? A chameleon, perhaps? ;)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

…If I am already a member do I have to re-apply?

Thanks!
Brit

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Brit –

No, you do not have to re-apply if you are already a member of the pod.

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

I am a bit confused………

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Apparently, you can't see it if you're not a member.  Alas. It seems to be a limitation of the software. Mods, can you write to Brian and ask if there are plans to change that, or perhaps if there's a workaround?

Still, I like this move. People who've looked up “Integral” or “Wilber” or whatever related keyword, will find us, and it filters out drive-by posting.

I don't actually think it's been a huge problem yet, but it was rapidly getting to a point where I couldn't keep track of all the stuff going on and was getting frustrated by people who seem to have one-issue axes to grind.

With invite only, those people will either get interested in all things integral and stay (which some have done already-yes!) or get bored and look for fresh meat elsewhere.

Liz

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

I've dropped a note to ~C4; we'll see what we can do.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Thank you, Siona!

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Hot damn.  “The group is it's own worst enemy” was a really fascinating read. Sort of 'extracting' the Integral in it was a great heady excersize. You just felt/saw the quadrants and levels silently speaking between the lines. And these stories of the evolution of online communities, sort of working from and with different memes and being confronted with their limitations,  and being compelled to learn to deal with new levels of complexity. Like a modern integral ferrytale. I got this intuition about the structuring of the next wave of democracy or something.

Anyway… Hope this works out for the good of all. (and that sex-talk isn't completely obliterated.. ; P)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

“(and that sex-talk isn't completely obliterated.. ; P)”

not likely while Arthur is here…

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

noah: “Hot damn.  “The group is it's own worst enemy” was a really fascinating read. Sort of 'extracting' the Integral in it was a great heady excersize. You just felt/saw the quadrants and levels silently speaking between the lines. And these stories of the evolution of online communities, sort of working from and with different memes and being confronted with their limitations,  and being compelled to learn to deal with new levels of complexity. Like a modern integral ferrytale. I got this intuition about the structuring of the next wave of democracy or something.”

Yes!  Isn't that document so obviously coming from an integral consciousness, but without using any of the jargon?  I'm so glad you enjoyed it.  :)

arthur

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

As always, I am asking:
Exactly WHAT problem are YOU  trying to solve? 

Are there piles of MEMBER complaints about people popping through and finding it not to their liking, pissing people off in the meantime?   Really? 

meh.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Julie, so good to have your radiant brilliance back again.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Julie wrote:

As always, I am asking:
Exactly WHAT problem are YOU  trying to solve? 

Are there piles of MEMBER complaints about people popping through and finding it not to their liking, pissing people off in the meantime?   Really? 

Julie, it's more a question of heading a problem off at the pass: seeing trends and taking action before the pod ballooned and caved in under its own growth.

One trend the mods have recently noticed was people joining solely so they could post on a particular Zaadz-searchable issue of intense interest to them, (one example is the movie The Secret), but who were not acquainted with integral theory or Ken Wilber's ideas. Of course there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but when it starts happening at an accelerating rate, eventually the pod could become filled with people who have no interest in integral theory, and then boom: it's no longer a pod focused on integral theory.

Making the pod invite-only at this point ensures that most of the folks here are here because of an abiding interest in integral thought and/or a keen desire to learn more about it. It also means that the discussions and sharings here remain largely focused on exploring topics through an integral lens - which is obviously the purpose of this pod. (In addition to telling funky jokes and shooting the shit and reading Ramsses' latest quatrain …)

Say you have a salon that meets in a public space to discuss the problems caused by the Bush administration, but people start showing up to discuss flowering shrubs. The facilitators would have to do something to rectify that problem. It's nothing against the folks who want to discuss flowering shrubs. It's a clarification and a way to hold the space for the salon's original intent. 

But I truly do hope we can find a way to make the pod viewable to all …

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Mary wrote: But I truly do hope we can find a way to make the pod viewable to all …

It'll happen by tomorrow; no worries. And thank you for your kind explication of the reasons behind the invite-only decision. :)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Woo-hoo, Siona! That's great news; thanks!

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Good move, arthur.

MetaFilter used to provide a message indicating that new user signups had been disabled, and also allowed read access for unregistered users. I'm sure you would have done this if it was possible, but its something to keep in mind if you ever get a chance to communciate with the Zaadz team.

TC

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Arthur
In essence i think a very good idea, as it filters out those who are not serious or who have not read studied and PRACTICED integral.
However what is the criteria and who decides - is it a group or you yourself?

Also, because a) i am relatively new to Integral and therefore less knowledgeable, but 'gaining ground' fast (i am also about to start a training in integral counselling) - i have no idea where i would place myself on the spiral - maybe second tier has more of an artistic blend then a clear division into a spectrum(?) hehe who knows…
and importantly i live in the uk and am therefore further removed from the hub of activity, but believe the link is a vitally important one…
I guess maybe i'm asking in a typically roundabout english way, am i qulified to be a part of this pod, even though given my current busy life i'll be more of 'a lurker' for now, also as i catch up in both study and practice?

essentially i support the move, even if im not there with you lot, as i have also experienced getting lost in a thread due to posts coming in that are really not that relevant.

thanks to you all - i have had many a fascinating and integrally transforming read!

melv

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

melv:
Arthur
In essence i think a very good idea, as it filters out those who are not serious or who have not read studied and PRACTICED integral.
However what is the criteria and who decides - is it a group or you yourself?

This isn't Arthur's decision, it is a joint decision by all three moderators. And as always, if the founder of the pod (~C4Chaos) doesn't like what the moderators are doing he has the power to fire us.


melv:
I guess maybe i'm asking in a typically roundabout english way, am i qulified to be a part of this pod, even though given my current busy life i'll be more of 'a lurker' for now, also as i catch up in both study and practice?

You are very much qualified!
Anybody with a sincere interest in integral theory and integral consciousness is a target member for the pod.
What we do not want are people who couldn't care less about Integral theory but join simply to preach about a single issue.


All best,

Pelle

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

You are cutting down I-I Zaddz so that it can function as a turquoise forum ?  Well how delightfully protencious!

You know, I have seen it all now -and I am going to be forlorn and frowned upon (and seen as less holistic, what not) for expressing these views in the open way that I am about to.

Sure -all the highly intellectual academics of this pod (who have maintained every right to ignore me and my small brain up until now; missing my point deliberatley and correcting my spelling) -they will no doubt have some marvelous responses to this post, concerning my lack of vision or ever narrowing world view.

You know what?  Go take a flying f**k (yeah, I censored it) at a rolling doughnut.  Kiss my big furry….quadrant.

Invite only?  Give me a break. 

Anytime I have opened my mouth within the walls (confines) of this pod, I have been beat down, shrugged out, pushed to the side and left bewildered.  BeWilbered. 

I have been told this is because I am a beginner.  Because I am new to integral theory.  Well, is it?  No.  If anyone had taken the time to talk to me, or read my boring small-mind introduction, they would know fine well that I have been a member of I-I since early days, in certain capacities, and have an enormous understanding, in myself, of what the integral life view is all about.  I had done, long before I ever got a hold of anything Kenny baby ever penned. 

Anyway.  I thought I was here to make a concrete point (feel free to point out, as I just have, that I have not and I have failed largely to make any cohesive argument).

I'm leaving.  Don't wait up.

D.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

My concern about this decision was that the pod would no longer allow read-only access to non-members, so I'm glad to hear from Siona that this is being rectified.

By “invite only,” I am guessing this means that when people wish to join, they have to click “Join” and then submit a letter of interest which is reviewed by the moderators?

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Daibhidh,

I hope you'll reconsider.I've been insanely busy, but I've been meaning to talk to you over on the introductions thread. Even had a few half-finished posts that were abandoned in my haste.

I think you're taking this really personally, and if you step back and read what the intent is, you'll see that all who are sincerely interested in discussing integral theory from any level are welcome. I only read my first Wilber book 3 years ago and have no claim to uber-understanding.

Maybe because some people joined recently, they're going to feel unwelcome. That's not the case. In fact, many of the folks who would be targeted are already gone. What I call drive-by posters.

The mods are trying to avoid repeating a lot of mistakes that have been made over and over again, both by I-I and numberless online forums before. I hope you and anyone else who's offended will read the Shirkey (sp?) paper and see for yourselves.

Liz

Liz

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Daibhidh,

I have no idea what you are referring to, but you alluded to this perceived mistreatment in you introductory thread. I responded there 2 days ago, and explained I had already lost an hour writing an even lengthier response which the system ate. I know the other Liz responded too, as her post appeared while I was editing mine.

I do know that I spent the better part of a morning trying to respond to your earlier post and it doesn't seem like you read it. Unless that is supposed to be unreasonable in some way, in which case I would be grateful if you would explain how.

Oh and your post here does look like a tantrum, that's not the way to get the best out of people.

Liz

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

I just read the notification email and immediately headed over to this thread. I was expecting that there would be at least some dissent and balking; good to see that that voice is speaking! Someone's gotta do it, no?

I support this attempt at group containment, I suppose. I came into the thread with these questions: Who is the gatekeeper and what are the conditions for admittance? Seems like that might be a tricky position to hold and define. Glad to see some answers: The Mod Squad trio are the gatekeepers (fine with me). Demonstrating turquoise is a bit murky, and calling oneself so seems to garner suspicion (from some), so I suppose the onus is on the requesting zaadzter to show a history of integral interest? Have at it Mod Squad; it's not a position I'd want.  8)

Again, though, I understand and appreciate the gatekeeping efforts. There are so few places in the world, most of which are on the Internet and are still very fragile, that cater to the Integral Elite (Gawd, that sounds soo tawdry!)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Everyone!

This board is now semi-private; it can be readable by anyone, but to comment, you'll need to join. At Zaadz, we're all committed to speaking from our highest self, but I know this board is concerned about discussions of Integral not being diluted, so requesting some degree of familiarity – or at least commitment to learning! – sounds utterly reasonable to me. Still, I assume the moderators won't be too beariish about letting people in; all they need is committment to the agreed-upon principles, no? After all, more voices do tend to be better … because Integral is about a multipicity of perspectives.

:)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

This statement speaks for itself:     “In fact, many of the folks who would be targeted are already gone. What I call drive-by posters.” 

Chogyam Trungpa had a saying he applied to meditation, but it applies to many things, including moderation:              “Not too tight, not too loose.”

Before I rejoined, my Zaadz profile had gone dormant; I had 'Tell them about myself' before it could be reactivated.  Can I presume, therefore, that there is a gate for all new people at the Zaadz level?  (or am I special?)

The good news is that people can still FIND the pod, people can still read the pod, they just can't post on a whim.

How will this new gate work? 

Now I could see if, when a potential member were to join this pod, they received a message on what the pod was about (Integral koolaid drinking, liable to be boring to the unititiated) and a short list of road rules, to which they could click 'I accept.' 

If a prospective member merely says “I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about Ken Wilber and want to know more” is that enough?   How high is the bar?  (Hey, it's MY fantasy world…get your own)

A real-life example: I've been incubating a topic for some time; it's going to come to fruition one of these days.  I may want to invite others to join in, even though they have NOT read Wilber, but because I respect their opinion and talents. So is a note to the mods “Julie sent me” enough? 

Now, I am as big a fan of the “we learn by doing” school of everything as the next person.  But when communications come across as an edict, presented without much rationale or thinking the problem through–well, I work on a military base, and am confronted by edicts constantly, to which I am always asking “what problem is this trying to solve?  Is this really the BEST way to solve the problem?”

So that's my own mantra “What problem is this trying to solve?  Is this really the BEST way to solve the problem? How do I communicate it so people understand there IS a problem, and who it affects?”

But I really do want to talk about flowering shrubs. It's SPRINGTIME, dammit. There must be another pod for that.

Ta-ta…

PS: Hi Pharoah-dude. Missed you too, you weirdo. XOXOX

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

As just two littl cents here, as a suggestiong for criteria for membership, etc.: it's probably much better to decide what you don't want than to set down some list of what you do or might. And I'll bet that's the thinking going on behind this anyway already.

Actually, I think that's one of the first gigantic mistakes of recent over at I-I; an attempt to try and define what you want. ( I mean, what options are left after no flirting and no cliques!?) It should be thought of the other way around.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Julie said:

“But when communications come across as an edict, presented without much rationale or thinking the problem through–well, I work on a military base, and am confronted by edicts constantly, to which I am always asking 'what problem is this trying to solve?  Is this really the BEST way to solve the problem?'”

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

“Why do you assume nobody has thought this through, just because it happened without them consulting you?”

Because of the incompleteness of the presentation and the 'emergency' language, when a cursory look around reveals all is more less orderly.

It naturally has nothing to do with my being consulted or lack thereof. 

“What about avoiding a problem in the first place, especially when you've seen it before and can head it off at the pass?”

Depends on your definition of the problem.  A problem for the rabbit is a dinner for the coyote.

Just realized that this appears to be a difference between my tolerance for 'clutter' and those of the mods.  I can probably spend all day reading the active threads and not see the problem that the mods are addressing.

So are you guys doing a LOT of cleanup, or only a little?
Not too tight, not too loose.  Sage words…

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

“Just realized that this appears to be a difference between my tolerance for 'clutter' and those of the mods.  I can probably spend all day reading the active threads and not see the problem that the mods are addressing.”

Wise indeed. I think you may have hit on it. Although I declined to be a mod, for lots of reasons, I do see why it looks like an emergency to them.

Thanks  very much for explaining further, Julie. That really clarifies your perspective for me. I think you may have erred on the side of brevity at first, which is so rare in the online world as to be somewhat startling to me.

Liz

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Siona, you are a star! Thank you so much for getting the forum to be viewable by everyone.

Now, some clarifications to all:

- You do not have to be an Integral God to participate in this forum. A sincere interest in Integral Theory and Ken Wilber is all that is needed.

- Not every single thread has to be about AQAL and Integral Theory. But our interest in these subjects is the glue that keeps the pod members connected.

- Constructive criticism of Ken Wilber and AQAL is always welcome, the key word being constructive.

- Constructive criticism of the moderators is also welcome. We will read your suggestions carefully but we won't enter into endless green dialoguing or processing.

-  Please do not take the problem of scale personally. You are only one person and as such you cannot be the problem of scale.

- At the moment the pod is closed to new members. This has been an emergency decision to avoid an implosion of the pod. Right now we'll see how things go, and at a later date we might open the pod so that interested people can apply for membership.

- Please feel free to start a thread about any subject you are interested in. As a thread-starter it is very much up to you how interesting and long-lasting the thread will be. Try to think of yourself as the host of the thread.

- You are more than welcome to start a thread if you feel stuck on certain integral concepts and need help to understand.

- Most of all: Let's have some fun! Let's get our hands dirty and explore a myriad of topics and a myriad of perspectives. Head over to the I-I Water Cooler to hang out, chat and make some new friends. Post some intelligent shit in Chapel Perspicacious. If you haven't already done so Introduce yourself. Go to Operating Principles and discuss your daily practice.


Loving embrace,

Pelle (mod)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

“Other measures will likely be taken in the near future in order to preserve the intended nature of this pod - in brief, to function as a turquoise forum for those interested in integral theory and practice, specifically as defined in the work of Ken Wilber.”

Sounds ominous! It also sounds like a religion i.e. you only want Turquoise Believers in Integral Theory, and those believers are only to discuss the theory and how to practice it. If you really are at the turquoise level, then what is the need of such things? The danger is that the method (Integral Theory) becomes more important than the goal i.e. evolution. Integral Theory is only a tool, not a description of reality (we are too small to describe reality). If you do not include people who are questioning Integral Theory itself, you will close off life.

I am willing to learn about Integral theory if there is a clear simple introduction to the basics. But I have not found one. The ones recommended in this pod do not satisfy me because of KW's unquestioned assumptions. (Ken Wilber calls himself by an Indian term, “pandit”, and has a book with an Indian title, “The Atman Project”, and it appears to me that he theorises from past patterns without examining the motivation for past patterns, being survival and happiness, thereby limiting our potential.) Are you only going to include people who are satisfied with Ken’s assumptions? Do you see how this diminishes the discussion? I have repeatedly commented about Ken Wilber’s assumptions in this pod without receiving a reply. It seems that the Turquoise Ones agree with Ken Wilber’s assumptions and don’t want to question them. Is that the basis for membership?

Of course, if you want to learn more about Integral Theory at the turquoise level, you must focus on it, but that should include questioning it. Outsiders can question it more effectively than insiders can.

You want a “turquoise forum.” In this pod, the turquoise level is partly described as “a mature integral view, one that sees… healthy hierarchy… Turquoise is the first to begin to integrate Spirit as a living force in the world…” So what does “healthy hierarchy” mean? The root of the word “hierarchy” relates to high priests, so this needs to be clarified. The dictionary defines hierarchy as “a ranking of people or things”. So what are you ranking as being higher or lower? Also, is there a force called “spirit”? What is it made of? Is it God? Can we integrate it? Can the smaller (a person) integrate the higher (God)?

Martin Gifford.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Martin wrote: If you do not include people who are questioning Integral Theory itself, you will close off life.

–We never said we were not including people who are questioning integral theory. Rather, we want members who are interested in integral theory. Interest in integral theory includes inquiry into it and constructive criticism of it.

Take another look at Pelle's earlier post.

I am willing to learn about Integral theory if there is a clear simple introduction to the basics. But I have not found one.

–It could be that there is really no such thing as a “clear and simple” introduction to the basics. (Although It's still worth checking out the links provided on the bottom of the opening page of this pod). Getting introduced to integral theory perhaps requires a certain amount of patient sniffing around, spending some time reading and pondering. What material have you perused? Although it's more than 10 years old now, I thought Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything was a great introduction to integral theory. And his more recent Integral Spirituality contains the latest clarifications on AQAL, perspectives, states and stages, and shadow. 

I have repeatedly commented about Ken Wilber's assumptions in this pod without receiving a reply.

There's no guarantee that anyone's comments will receive a reply. Such is the nature of conversation in an online forum. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people here have had the experience of commenting on something, or asking an open question, or starting a thread  – and receiving little or no response. It happens to me. I can understand that this might feel disconcerting, but I don't think you should take it personally. 

Are you only going to include people who are satisfied with Ken's assumptions? Do you see how this diminishes the discussion? I have repeatedly commented about Ken Wilber's assumptions in this pod without receiving a reply. It seems that the Turquoise Ones agree with Ken Wilber's assumptions and don't want to question them. Is that the basis for membership?

–Again: no, the idea is not to include only those people who are satisfied with Ken's assumptions. I've seen some folks here (some who used to participate on the Integral Institute multiplex forums) seriously question Ken's assumptions. If you take a look at the Feminism thread in the Chapel section here, you'll see some members doing such questioning. And that's just one example.

Once more, the basis for membership is: a keen interest in integral ideas.

As for the integral take on hierarchy – I'll have to get back to you on that. Or perhaps someone else here who is ready to pipe in on that: feel free. My brain's a bit frazzled at the moment …

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

O Martin, lighten up a little, will ya?         

All these questions make me think that you haven't read much of what our mod squad has said in countless posts, here and on the Multiplex. Perspectives are taken with lightness and ease, shuffled and squeezed for all they're worth, and then dropped… or maybe not. This is what makes this community so exciting: that people don't constantly repeat their pet peeves, but demonstrate an amazing flexibility and range of expression in  a  great number of ways.

Don't you see?

M

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Hi Martin

I personally doubt we'll need to take any other measures in the near future after all; having people apply for membership as opposed to just dropping into one thread that caught their eye on the “explore” page seems helpful to address the problems we saw starting to develop.

Ken's map of reality - which is certainly not the territory! - seems to work quite well for my own purposes, and I'm very interested in discussions with people who also find his map to be a useful tool for heartfelt exploration of the human experience in all its glorious diversity and ever-unfolding evolutionary trajectories.  I certainly do not lack in my daily life for oportunities to interact with people who are not into that particular approach to life, and I enjoy that quite a bit; however, I also find it very rewarding to have a group of people who share my interest in this particular way of looking at the world.  IIzaadz has become one such - very rare - place where I can interact with many such people; and that rarity motivates me to try to nurture and protect this wespace as best I can.

I honor all the other stages/stations in life, and respect the need for people at their respective stations to have occasions to hang out with other like-minded individuals; similarly, I find it healthy and natural for people who find Ken's particular map useful, and for whom the term “turquoise community” even makes any sense, to want to have places to hang out together.

I have to admit that I personally don't find it very interesting or rewarding to debate the merits of Ken Wilber's work or this particular map, at least not in the way you seem to be approaching it.  Perhaps others would like to engage you in that way.  Simply put, if it works for you - or sounds promising at least - if you find resonance with it, or with people who are into that particular way of mapping reality, then great!  And if not - that's cool too!  And if you know of a better, more comprehensive and inclusive map of human reality in all its diversity then I'd love to hear about it.  :)

Just to point out the obvious, this pod is explicitly founded on the work of Ken Wilber and his particular set of orienting generalizations; his work is kinda why we're here.  (As an aside, if you don't like “pandit,” you can always refer to him as the “Big Bald Guy” or BBG for short.)

spiral on,
arthur

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Ok. Mary, you asked for it.

Martin, integral hierarchy is healthy when you get to lecture me (implicitly) and I get to lecture you. Like this:



Don't ask questions you already know the 'right' answer to; in your case that amounts to an interrogation. And it sucks. How? It sucks the energy out of tremendously intelligent, humorous & loving people who offer their services for freee and do their level best to accommodate lecturing nuts such as you and me on this pod.

And:  There can never be an objective being.

          Knowing this, the rest is known.

How's that for your weekend hierarchy needs?

~M

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

I support the new process for participation and ask that the moderators keep in mind the “not too tight, not too loose” advice from Trungpa.

(I am also curious to find out if I am still a member or if I have timed out…)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Nancy: “I support the new process for participation and ask that the moderators keep in mind the “not too tight, not too loose” advice from Trungpa.”

Good advice, that.  As always, please give us input if you feel we are going astray.  This thread is a good place, as are PM's, or the Feedback and Suggestions board.

Our plan is to tighten or loosen our moderating consciousness by self-administering amphetimines or alcohol as required.

Nancy: “(I am also curious to find out if I am still a member or if I have timed out…)”

No one will be “timed out.”  Your membership in the pod will continue unabated, unless you accidentally hit the button to leave the pod - this happened to one person yesterday; she PM'd me and was reinstated immediately.

spirals,
arthur

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Accepting service-oriented hierarchy is practically a pre-requisite for an aspirant to fully participate in the turquoise “we” space.  How could anything that Arthur, Balder, Pelle, and Mary came up with not be in the best interests of this forum?  Besides, they are nothing if not open to suggestion.  I am in a state of trust about it having more or less grokked the distracting “problem” that they seek to preempt.

best,
Michael

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Hey all. I want to throw in some comments and suggestions. I apologize in advance if I'm repeating things. I've skimmed through most posts tho, and want to give my subjective 2 cents.

First of all, to all that get half-sick about “coloring” people. I can relate. I was a member of IN a long time, and after a while became real sceptical to the coloring, and quit. (rejoined tho..) But I feel I'm gaining a new perspective these days. I think the “Road Rules” are very clarifying. Calling this a “turquoise” space, means - as I see it - that we'll aspire to communicate at that level. From our Highest Selves as we see it. It's not a broad proclamation of “We Are More Evolved Than YOU”, it's rather a proclamation of an aspiration, as well as a recognition of a shared interest.

2nd. If one really despises the notion of hierarchy, or other parts of Integral, why even be here? Maybe that's harsh, but since zaadz has so many pods, I don't see why one would wish to waste time with a bunch of self-righteous brainwashed integral theory freaks. Let them/us delude our/themselves in peace. 

I think the same goes for criticism. Of course, anyone honestly interested in Integral theory will welcome constructive criticism. But there should be a limit. E.g., if some at IIzaadz are discussing politics via integral theory, and perhaps ranking and evaluating different political views, it becomes sort of off mark to bring up whether or not 'ranking' is a legitimate method of inquiry. That debate can be had somewhere else.

(I sense I'm going on too long again. I've problems with brevtiy. But hey.. That's another thing. If long complicated wordy (selfabsorbed…?) debate puts you off, then, well,…. maybe theory isn't your tea-cup.)

In light of this, I want to make a few suggestions to the moderators, and to anyone put off by this whole invite-only or turqoise space thang. One out of two: IIzaad could create - if this is possible - a specific thread or sub-pod that's devoted to critical views on all things Integral. This could be open to all. alternately, anyone critical to Integral could start a pod devoted to this. you know “Critical views on Integral” or something.    Shouldn't this satisfy most? Then the Wilberees could procede uninterupted with their insider-pod, while still popping in on the critical ones. (or maybe that would end up invite-only too….. hehe ; ) )


A 2nd suggestion. I see some were pointing out that IIzaadz should be viewable/browseable for non-members also. I agree. But what about also starting a particular space that is private, or member-only? I know from my experience as a forumer, that I've blurted out things I've regretted later. Or read things I shouldn't have.Lost in emotion or whatever. In addition, there are certain topics that I think are better suited for a closed discussion, e.g. drug issues, personal developement stuff,  shadow issues, experiences at integral seminars or sessions, etc, or, of course, viscious slander about the unevolved, and uninhibited sharing of sexual deviances. : P

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

noah:
In light of this, I want to make a few suggestions to the moderators, and to anyone put off by this whole invite-only or turqoise space thang. One out of two: IIzaad could create - if this is possible - a specific thread or sub-pod that's devoted to critical views on all things Integral.

The mods encourage anybody who's interested in this subject to start such a thread!


noah:
A 2nd suggestion. I see some were pointing out that IIzaadz should be viewable/browseable for non-members also. I agree.

This is now in place, thanks to Siona.


noah:
But what about also starting a particular space that is private, or member-only? I know from my experience as a forumer, that I've blurted out things I've regretted later.

The beautiful thing about Zaadz is that everyone has the power to create a new pod. If you want to, you can make your new pod completely private and invite a group of people who want to discuss shadow issues or other more intimate stuff.
Obviously this pod is also open to people sharing their shadow issues or other personal issues, should they feel comfortable in doing so.


peace

Pelle

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

noah:
But what about also starting a particular space that is private, or member-only? I know from my experience as a forumer, that I've blurted out things I've regretted later.

The beautiful thing about Zaadz is that everyone has the power to create a new pod. If you want to, you can make your new pod completely private and invite a group of people who want to discuss shadow issues or other more intimate stuff.
Obviously this pod is also open to people sharing their shadow issues or other personal issues, should they feel comfortable in doing so.

Hi Pelle.

yes, I guess that was part of my point. At zaadz anyone can start a pod, so if someone thinks this particular one lacks this or that, one can start a new pod.

But, this sort of touches the scale question, but in another sense. There's a whole lotta pods out there. And anyone with the intent to start a conversation - or a pod - and debate specific issues, will want to “reach an audience”, so to speak. Which is easier to do within the confines of an already existing one. And since this is sort of the “official” Integral pod (perhaps that's my assumption), that's why I suggested e.g. a “critic” section as an undercategory within IIzaadz. Perhaps to appease the sceptical. But, of course, those issues can be addressed in threads like “chapel perspacisoijs”(whatever that word was..)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Thank you for thinking forward in looking for advance ways to handle the issues that come up in any communal type groups. There must be a delicate balance maintained. I have been thinking about this a lot over the last few months working with one group to set up an on-line discussion group and recently being asked to monitor another pod. I loved the Shirkey article/speech, It is amazing to me how fast we evolve - I remember the BBSes and was a Usenet person in the early years of the net. I have floated through a lot of spaces both on and off line, looking for community and more ways to grow and learn. That is what brought me to Zaadz in the first place. I was glad when I saw IIzaadz happen, IN thrilled me and I still listen to pod-cast and downloads almost daily. I have a tendency to spook ,in and around, for a long time before stepping in, just in case you may have been questioning why I have not joined in any conversation until now. I like to watch… after-all my training is that of an observer. I was also waiting to see how this pod chose to deal with the inevitable problems of an open group, I look forward to watching the evolution from here. How exciting! Maria
PS: Am I the only one who thinks it is absolutely hilarious that the Zaadz spell check doesn't recognize the word Zaadz?

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

I was out for a long week-end and was surprised by this announcement.

1) it is a good idea to secure the pod IF non-members can still read it.

2) But I disagree with the language: To make a turquoise pod!

This justification is not needed! because :

1) it is totally improbable that  anyone can evaluate the levels of the participant.

2) it means that all three moderators are turquoise.

I have no fear of hierarchy, but when hierarchy starts to think that it is on top because of some higher spiritual level…well then I fear it!

I can see it coming: When something goes wrong, people will be accused of not beeing turquoise.

We should distinguish two things here:

1) Authority and management of a pod

2) spiritual levels

I think that the decision taken by all three moderators is good on the first level.

The justification and the language, on the contrary, seems to me very dangerous.

I've written my concern about the road rules and specially “speak from your higher self”. I will not again say what I think about that part.

We should, according to me, beware of two things:

1) labeling and levelings…turquoise and stuff is good theoretically, but practically I'm not sure.

2) a creeping paranoid feeling that could come on this pod… a fear to voice ones dissent. This is Zaadz… not Integral Institute.

Patrick

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Hi Patrick.

I attempted to address these very questions in a post above here. Have a look if you're interested..

“it is totally improbable that  anyone can evaluate the levels of the participant.”
Isn't that claim a bit strong or categorical? I'd say perhaps you can't evaluate the level of the person, but you could make claims about what level a specific post might reflect.

“it means that all three moderators are turquoise”
I don't see that. Tho I can't speak for the the mods. But, is the problem, in your view, that the mods are claiming to inhabit a higher level? If so, why is that a problem? I interpret “turqoise pod” and “higher selves”, as simply attempting to post from what we all individually interpret as just that - highest self. It's an aspiration, not a categoric claim of higher developement or superiority.

“labeling and levelings…turquoise and stuff is good theoretically, but practically I'm not sure.”
This seems to be your premise. (?) I can't help but think it's a bit contradictory. First, - what good is a theory that has no practical value? Imo, a good theory is precisely one that has actual correlations to practical reality. If not, it's just a tapestry of words; a fiction. The litmus test is if a theory corresponds to one's own experience of how things are, and perhaps to one's intuitions of the structure of reality. Wilber and Integral caught me, because it seemed a well-structured theory (story..) that intelligently articulated my own somewhat unorganized intuitions. 

“I have no fear of hierarchy, but when hierarchy starts to think that it is on top because of some higher spiritual level…well then I fear it!”

So the above goes for hierarchy. Isn't hierarchy  just that; that some are higher than others? I think that's how we learn, - and especially spiritually - from accepting the authority of those we recognize as “above” ourselves. I think that implies that those with deeper understanding have an awareness of this higher development.

Just inquiring here. :) but what do you think?

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Noah, Thanks for your response. Food for thought.

“it means that all three moderators are turquoise”
I don't see that. Tho I can't speak for the the mods. But, is the problem, in your view, that the mods are claiming to inhabit a higher level?

To judge if a post is at a certain level, one must at least be at that level! Suppose your green and you talk with someone at orange, they'll probably think your wrong and to relative, but certainly not at a higher level.

So I did not say the moderators claimed to be at this level, as I have not seen any such claim in any of their post. I say that if they judge a post to be turquoise or not, that implies, de facto, that they know well this level. So that makes an indirect claim.

“It's an aspiration, not a categoric claim of higher developement or superiority. ”
Exactly, and an aspiration cannot be a rule.


I:”labeling and levelings…turquoise and stuff is good theoretically, but practically I'm not sure.”
You:”This seems to be your premise. (?) I can't help but think it's a bit contradictory. First, - what good is a theory that has no practical value? Imo, a good theory is precisely one that has actual correlations to practical reality.”

It is not contradictory. KW's ideas is an enormous corpus of hypothesis. I can agree totally with some, disagree with some others and doubt about other points. It does not mean that I take all his ideas for granted. And yes, I have doubts about self labelling. A lot of his ideas need, for me, to pass the test of practicality. That will take a long time for me, probably all my life.  But this is a discussion in itself.

Me: “I have no fear of hierarchy, but when hierarchy starts to think that it is on top because of some higher spiritual level…well then I fear it!”

You:”So the above goes for hierarchy. Isn't hierarchy  just that; that some are higher than others? I think that's how we learn, - and especially spiritually - from accepting the authority of those we recognize as “above” ourselves. I think that implies that those with deeper understanding have an awareness of this higher development”

I agree with you. But we are talking here about this pod. The moderators were not chosen because of their spiritual qualities. I submit myself to their authority simply because they are the moderators of the pod, that I am a participant, and that I agree to the rules they've set. I'm not here because of the spiritual qualities of the moderators (sorry Pelle, Arthur and Marry). I think they do well their job, and that this pod has a high functionning level. That's it.

Now I have no problem submitting to someone more spiritualy evolved than me. I've had a Guru for 15 years. But I certainly did not chose him on a pod. I carefully observed him, his attitudes and so on. A level of developpment is known by observing many lines of developpment (cognitive, emotional, psycho-sexual, ethical, and the like). On a pod, I can only see the cognitive aspects, and some emmotional ones. I would certainly not judge on these matter.

I hope this clears it.

Patrick

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Hi Patrick.  You make good points. An incongruency in the debate might be mixed opinions/perceptions about the rigidity of  the Rules. I don't have any trouble with aspirations being a rule, though this, as you point out, depends on how the rules will be enforced.
 

You said;
And yes, I have doubts about self labelling. A lot of his ideas need, for me, to pass the test of practicality. That will take a long time for me, probably all my life.  But this is a discussion in itself.

It would be fun to continue that discussion- and some other points here -  in another thread, if you're interested. (so we don't clog up this one..)

One small point about the subjectivity of the notion of ones “higher self”. In my view (uh oh.. : ) ), as subjectivity reaches new levels of depth, particularly what we might call integral, and spiritual (not the same, I think, - keeping in mind the Many Selves and lines) , then subjectivity begins to have objective import, so to speak. Deeper understanding can start to have quite accurate  intuitions about the structure of things. In other words, when in touch with your actual higher self, you'll Know it's precisely That.

Don't know if this is getting off-topic. but, as mentioned, we could pick it up in a new thread. Don't have time to do it just now, tho.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Yes, Noah, would be interesting to talk about it. A new thread would be needed.
I agree that one can intuite when talking from a/the higher self. But still, that claim can be dangerous as well.

No time for me either to start this thread now.

Hope we'll do that soon.

Patrick

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Your points resonate, Patrick. I think many of us share your concerns to one degree or another. I would also add two  more to the list of “fears” that come up:

1) Concern about preemptive actions by (possibly, understandably) too trigger-happy moderators.

2) Concern about talking our mods to death, as Arthur put it – akin to the online vivisection of people and their motivations.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Mascha, could you calrify the second point, I think I haven't understood it: “Talking our mods to death…”

Here is some babling of mine over the notion of “talking from one's higher Self”. Some of you know that each time this notion is invoked, I jump to the sealing!LOL. I'll get over it guys..someday!

- This injunction “talk from your higher self” is totally subjective and unverifiable. No one can say “you talk from your higher self ” or “you do not!” We can have a sense about it, but no certainty. So for this matter this cannot be a rule! A rule should be a criteria that can be objectively demonstrated, like, “No ad hominem attacks”. This can be clearly proven.

- What is Higher Self?:
1) do you mean a state? Well, if that's the case, I doubt any of us can be in such a state long enough to only write from that place!
2) do you mean a stage? Then, is it the next one? If you're red, then the higher self will be amber! And so on! That makes it quite complicated, as higher Selfs will then express themselves differently .

- Even if this state/stage notion is not clarified, what to say about:
1) flaterry: does it come from higher self? certainly not!
2) consensus, or conventionnal thinking, can come from lower self! Will that be sanctionned? I guess not!

So we see that this notion of “speak from your higher self” is mainly directed at one thing: agressivity - as beeing nice even if it comes from the lower self will obviously not be a problem.

So let's drop this foggy notion and clearly say: “a certain level of agressivity is accepted, but not above this level!”. That would be clearer, more provable, although still not easily. But let's not mix notions here!

Or, let's applie this rule and sanction all manifestation which do not spring up from the Higher Self…be there positive or negative! That would be kind of a slow pod!!!!

This “Higher Self” has nothing to do with spirituality: it is only a rule aimed at managing anger. We can manage it without bringing a foggy notion of Higher Self! Can't we?

This sentence can reasonably only be a declaration of intention, a striving, an ideal never attained….Yes, never attained!

But never a rule!!!! Or does someone have a tool to distinguish what is from the Higher Self and what is not, of which I've never heard?

So this has to do with agressivity and conflict, and I totally agree that their should be rules concerning these notions. It's the mixing of spirtual jargons, which brings everybody in a double-bind that I dislike!

Imagine this situation:
You have a heated conflict on the pod…you go over the border with anger and someone says to you “I remind you the road rule to speak from your higher self”.
The next day, you post something quite conventionnal, which has nothing to do wiht higher self, but mostly your lower! Nobody reminds you the road rules of “talk from your higher self”

Then, you learn that you can be a sheep and that's ok! But if you bite you 're bad!

No..sorry…that does not work for me. The intention is good, the justification and the language, again, is misleading.

Patrick

 

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

The Road Rules ask that you post from your “Highest Self” not your “Higher Self.”  The injunction is to attempt to push yourself up to the highest you can currently manifest and develop an increased capacity at that level.  From my read of your post, you seemed to have gotten hooked by your misreading.  I believe this addresses most, if not all, of your comments.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Actually the Road Rules offer the option of “Higher” or “Highest” Self.

–Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Let me repeat what Arthur wrote above:
I personally doubt we'll need to take any other measures in the near future after all; having people apply for membership as opposed to just dropping into one thread that caught their eye on the “explore” page seems helpful to address the problems we saw starting to develop.

In other words the pod is now semi-private, meaning that non-members can read but not post, however people who are interested in Integral can still apply and become members. This is not a radical step to take, in fact it could have been implemented months ago to prevent “drive-by postings”.


Pelle

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Some people seem to be less than satisfied with this phrase in the original post:
“to function as a turquoise forum”

This phrase simply means that we aspire to let our turquoise cognition affect our other lines of development, for example the values line.

And believe it or not if you understand and appreciate AQAL then you have at least a 5-p cognition (turquoise). Congratulations :)

Pelle

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Patrick wrote: This injunction “talk from your higher self” is totally subjective and unverifiable. No one can say “you talk from your higher self ” or “you do not!” We can have a sense about it, but no certainty. So for this matter this cannot be a rule!

When I accept the injunction to “talk from your higher self,” I see it as a promise to the pod that I'll aspire to be at my best when engaging in conversations here: that I will read and listen attentively, breathe and take a little time to ponder, and respond using my head and my heart.

I don't see it as a law wherein moderators will be constantly attempting to verify whether posts are coming from the Higher Self. But it is something to remind people of, once in a blue moon, when emotions are running high or when reactivity seems to be getting the best of us.

It's an ideal to hold somewhat lightly, yet with great care for all the participants here–not something written on a stone tablet to be applied with a sense of absolute certainty.
 
You mentioned anger and aggression. If I read something here that angers me, I will ask myself if my anger is warranted, if I'm misunderstanding or misperceiving something, or if my feelings could be revealing an element of shadow. I will aspire to be honest if I'm angry, but try to express it in a way that's not vindictive or intentionally harmful. I will also remember that certain things are best responded to privately rather than publicly.

Here again is that Road Rule that speaks of the “Highest Self”:

1. Let the very next word out of your mouth (and into this forum) be coming from your Highest Self. If you understand what “integral” means, then let the next words out of your mouth be from your own integral mind or integral awareness. (Turquoise or higher, vision-logic or higher, second- and third-tier, etc.) If you don't know exactly what integral means, then use “Highest or Higher Self,” “True Self that is no-self,” “Spirit Mind,” “Big Mind,” or whatever you are comfortable with that evokes the highest or deepest or brightest You. Try to think/act/speak integral. This is at the cutting edge of evolution - what is it to think/act/speak integral?

I find this qualification about the “Highest Self” very helpful: whatever you are comfortable with that evokes the highest or deepest or brightest You.

So what you said earlier is spot on, Patrick: the “Highest Self” is defined subjectively.

Best,
Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Thanks Mary for your answer,

I agree with you on most point, except a central one:
“… but not express it in a way that's vindictive or intetionnaly harmful.”

I know it's a bit crazy, but I think that should even be allowed! That kind of reaction can happen. Integral means as well “with all levels”.

But, and that is the important point, then one should be able (and helped by the moderators) to see the shadow element and the hurting that has been done. And then a higher order reaction can take place. If it does not, and the person cannot see it's own shadow, then the moderators can act, in the form of a throw-out for example.

Conflict is a very powerful tool that brings profound learning. It would be sad to avoid it! Repression, I fear, has a good chance, to bring, in the long run, a severe pod-pathology.

Patrick

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Patrick said:

Mascha, could you calrify the second point, I think I haven't understood it: “Talking our mods to death…”

Well, we're getting very close to doing that on this very thread. Asking, What do you mean by…(fill in the blank) and discussing its implications for every man, woman & beast on this pod. Compelling mods to explain and/or justify every move they make ad nauseam. If I were Arthur, I'd be just about ready to give up on the job altogether. See this thread:

 http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/forums/9/19812/ShowThread.aspx#19812
The link starts at page 9…

Mary and Pelle seem to be alive and kicking, still.  But for how long? I feel protective of them all.

M

P.S. Patrick, I wrote this before I saw your latest post.  What can I say? You're making a valid point also. My main concern, again, is: Please don't kill the moderators  :-)

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Mascha,

I have no intention to kill the moderators (LOL) nor do I feel that this subject might “finish” them. I did not sense either that they're on the verge of a nervous breakdown. If that be the case, then sorry.

I feel it's part of a leader of any kind to be a “shadow eater and mirrorer”. I do not question each action they're taking but two specific notions which have to do with language and which seemed important to me.

But it's certainly important that some of us feel protective towards them.

Patrick

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Mascha,
You have such a wonderful, witty way of puttting things!!!  I heartily second you;  please don't kill the moderators!! 
Mod Squad–you are loved and appreciated!!!
Thank you,
Chris

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Patrick wrote: Conflict is a very powerful tool that brings profound learning. It would be sad to avoid it! Repression, I fear, has a good chance, to bring, in the long run, a severe pod-pathology.

Patrick: The mods never said, “thou shalt avoid conflict.” 

But I am suggesting that conflict can be handled diplomatically – that we can at least aspire to approach conflict in a more-or-less healthy way. Not that we will always succeed at this. But we can try.

And as always: to every rule there are exceptions. (And admittedly one of my personal flaws is a tendency to avoid conflict or to try to make everything okay when it may not yet be okay. That's why it's a good thing we have more than one mod here – having a few of us helps create a balance.)

At any rate, all you need to do is peruse the various threads here, and you'll soon come to see that they are not conflict-free!

Repression!? Hah!!!

And lemme add: Snork!!!

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Mary,

I posted the previous threads, because those things were on my mind seeing what was happening in the pod.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree, seeing your response.

I thought it was important to have this discussion because some notions can be vague (“turquoise”, “Higher/highest self”) but can also be applied litteraly. Vague notions applied litteraly can be a kind of violence. Clear rules, in clear wording, provide a solid foundation for a group.

Now for me this matter is closed.

 Turquoise Love to all of you…hum!
Patrick

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

I read A Group is its Own Worst Enemy, and have read through this thread….I just want to tell Arthur, Mary, Pelle et all the mod squad—Thank you. First the article is quite remarkable outlining most of the situations that arise in inter-meme conflict.

I love the quote: “The most charitable description of this repeated pattern is “learning from experience.” But learning from experience is the worst possible way to learn something. Learning from experience is one up from remembering. That’s not great. The best way to learn something is when someone else figures it out and tells you: “Don’t go in that swamp. There are alligators in there.” ”

The monkey wrench in the works of course is the lower level immunity from upper level knowledge which takes the form of the deadly statement: “You can’t tell me what to do!” And it seems that weilding this statement results in a wilely degree of impotence to all that are involved—as someone with a more emcompassing view watches someone heedless of that view walk into one Mac truck after another….and then there is the ensuing mess, and the collective resources in cleaning up the mess….and the samsaraic wheel of life grinds on and on…..

I appreciate the changes you have made to make this space ‘semi-private’…..you are all so smart! If I could have such insight myself, I might be able to move from this retreat perch at the periphery of civilization and get into the thick of it all.

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

MaryW, I was responding to the lead article by Arthur. You recommend a book that’s 10 years old, yet Pelle pointed out that Ken is up to Wilber-5, which disagrees with earlier versions of Wilber’s philosophy. And Wilber references his own old stuff too, so it’s a big mess. So I look at recent stuff. For that I go to WIE magazine, and so I conclude that Integral Theory includes approval of rude Western gurus (although “guru” is an Indian Hindu term), and that Ken believes in Indian spirituality, etc. I have skimmed his books and the bottom line is that I like many of his ideas but his unquestioned beliefs in Indian spirituality keep turning me off. So I pose the questions here and get ignored. No, I don’t take it personally. I just assume II Zaadzians have an unquestioned belief in Indian Spirituality too, so I’m trying to help them out in their efforts to progress to turquoise and beyond. Failing to address such fundamentals demonstrates poor intellectual rigour, yet Ken Wilber is supposed to be the great new age intellectual. I am interested in Integral ideas, but there’s a few elephants in the room that are trumpeting so loudly that I can’t progress in my knowledge of Integral until someone addresses them. Mary, you didn’t get back to me on the hierarchy issue. Notice that no one else seriously dealt with it either. Isn’t that interesting? “No elephants here, move along.”

Mascha, what is heavy about my post? I was responding to the lead article by Arthur. Yes I see people being flexible and honest and everything, and that’s great. But there’s a few elephants in the room that need to be addressed e.g. Ken’s Indian Spirituality fixation, and the hierarchy issue, and Andrew Cohen. Given that you and others here are turquoise or turquoise-aspirants, why don’t you use your superior techniques to enlighten my lowly ass? Integrate my interrogation and transcend it with your superior wisdom. It’s inevitable that when elephant trumpeting is ignored, people get louder and pushier. Listen to life.

Adastra/Arthur, Phew, no “other measures” will be taken. That’s good. I’m glad that you enjoy interacting with other Integral people without interruption. But what if an asteroid crashed into earth? Would you hang out your “do not disturb” sign again? There’s a loud elephant in the room. Pay attention to current life first, then evolution, then Integral Theory - even in a closed padded Integral Theory room. Does being with likeminded people mean ignoring elephants in the room? At that point it’s a life-excluding religious club. Although it’s not a map, my website article has an interesting premise for a map http://www.worldwidehappiness.org. Have you read it? Regarding “the obvious”, don’t you think that “orienting generalisations” is an intellectually appalling concept? I don’t mind the term “pandit” when it’s used by Indian Hindus. When it’s used by a western philosopher, it’s incredible, and needs to be questioned… to point out the obvious.

Michael wrote: “How could anything that Arthur, Balder, Pelle, and Mary came up with not be in the best interests of this forum?” Let me count the ways. They are humans after all, albeit turquoise ones.

Noah, the superiority and exclusiveness of calling this a turquoise space is palpable. I am here because I am interested in aspects of Integral but balk at hierarchy and Indian spirituality, so I ask the question regarding these elephant in the room. No, I refuse to let Integralists delude themselves and each other in peace - I care about progressing humankind’s understanding and will point out flaws wherever I see them. I agree that a subpod for criticisms should be created. But what about the elephant in the room? Will he be swept under the carpet this way? Regarding hierarchy, isn’t it a case of flowers saying they are superior to roots? Yet without the roots, the flower dies.

Patrick, great points about stages and states! “Higher Self” is a classic new age delusion and power trip.

Jane, I agree that learning from others is best. But I disagree with this: “The monkey wrench in the works of course is the lower level immunity from upper level knowledge which takes the form of the deadly statement: “You can’t tell me what to do!”” This is not is not a problem; it’s a challenge. If your knowledge is truly “upper” then it will have more powerful tools and it will include the lower. Such a person should have the tools to communicate to those on a lower level. Of course, the assumption that you have upper level knowledge could be a sticking point. Is KW's higher knowledge is more theory than substance?

Martin Gifford

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Martin wrote: Mary, you didn't get back to me on the hierarchy issue. Notice that no one else seriously dealt with it either. Isn't that interesting? “No elephants here, move along.”

So. You seem to assume that since I or others haven't “gotten back to you” on this issue after three days, I / we never will, and thus this is one of the elephants that remains in the room.

What I'd actually been thinking was that the integral view of hierarchy is somewhat complex, and probably better handled in another thread – after I'd managed to get more sleep, get a little less behind on my editorial deadline, and had a bit more time to respond thoughtfully to the question.

Another thing I had considered doing was finding some good explanatory passages on hierarchy from one of KW's books, and transcribing them … ( a later P.S., Okay, I just did this. Check out Hierarchy Through Integral Eyes).

But I gotta ask: honestly, if it is such a burning question for you that cannot wait another day or two, is reading (not just skimming) a book (or a section of a book) of KW's, whether it's the ten-year-old Brief History or Theory of Everything or the one-year-old Integral Spirituality, so much to ask? Or looking up “hierarchy” in the indexes of his books and seeing where that leads?

You could even start your own thread on the integral view of hierarchy. Or join in on the discussion at this thread: The Assumptions and Hypotheses of Integral.

Why would you assume that anyone here has an unquestioned belief in “Indian Spirituality” (whatever you mean by that) or in any other kind of spirituality, for that matter? Seems to me that folks here hold a wide variety of beliefs – while simultaneously questioning them.  

And I have to admit that the tone you're taking in your posts here doesn't make me all that eager to talk with you. Just sayin.

Mary

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Martin,
The challenges of the ‘you can’t tell me what to do’ issue are overwhelming to me. I am trying to learn what, if any, the ‘superior’ tools of communication, of ethic, of right behaviour are…….in this regard, I have often considered that KW’s ‘higher knowledge” is more theory than substance, certainly as it manifests in the social reality that I inhabit. I grasp and ponder and experiment with what the manifest ‘substance’ might actually look like…..Indeed, that would be one of my main reasons for participating in these discussions. It is my deepest passion to participate in finding a balanced, viable way into the future for all of us. The challenges of the ‘you can’t tell me what to do’ are evident everywhere– in our present destruction of the ecology of the earth(economy versus environment), terrorism and the war on terrorism, and, dear to my heart, the tragic circumstances of the aboriginal people in this country. Believe me, I am looking for the substance, and I am trying to learn to be the substance too.

As concerns the moderation on these boards and the new changes recently made, I appreciate that some kind of protection is needed to create the space for this discussion. The Integral Naked forum has the equivalent of the “Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, ha, ha, fart jokes” talked about in the article ‘a group is its own worse enemy’, and sincere, respectful dialogue is not possible there at this time, in my experience. I recognize that measures to protect this forum space are necessary.
Jane

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Martin–My goodness, who are you in such an argument with? 

Your grasp of the facts and presentation of Integral seem to be partial, and you want the members of this forum to educate you on it.  To PUSH the information to you when you want it, when you want it. 

The good news is that it's not my job, nor the job of anyone else here.   You do have to apply some of your own effort and processing beyond reading a couple of issues of WIE, which is not exactly my first choice in presentation of the material.  The Integral view is broad and complex, and is a tool, not a religion.  I have found it to be illuminating in many areas, and partial in others.  But, like anything else, you only get out of it what you put into it, and I haven't spent as much time with the material as most here.

Many people have concerns about Andrew Cohen, that thread is floating around here somewhere.  I don't quite understand it myself; but I also know that my projections about it probably have no more reality than yours. 

I'm not sure there are many Integral cultists here. Just some pretty intelligent, mostly gentle, sometimes annoying and stubborn, but overall open and honest people who are studying this particular view of life, to see how well it matches their own experience, and using it to understand still more of their experience.

But to limit Ken and Integral to an undefined 'Indian Spirituality'  (as if that were some form of 4-letter word just by itself) displays a complete lack of intellectual curiousity.

Which makes me wonder…Is it the spiritual flavor that is part of the Integral theories that's actually the source of your struggle with the approach? 

Yes, there may be an elephant in the room, but you are blindfolded and touching only a tiny fraction of skin, and trying to tell us you know what color it is. 

Pardon me, but I think I will go back to being annoying and stubborn in my own corner.

Namaste, Julie

Re: Problems of Scale at IIzaadz

Martin,

First, you seem to be focusing on Integral theory as a set of conclusions. In fact, its treated a method of inquiry, and the primary debate is over whether your reasoning is integral, that within the AQAL model means, at a minimum, transcending and including 1st tier value structures and allowing for all quadrants of knowledge. The AQAL model is an Integral theory, not The Integral Theory. You are free to critique the AQAL model and offer alternatives, but I find it helpful to demonstrate an understanding of it if you wish to engage others in dialog about it.

As it stands, your elephants have been addressed, frequently and repeatedly, on this forum, on other forums, and by Ken Wilber in various books and talks.


The issue of hierarchy is constantly being discussed and debated. Its generally agreed that reflexive, dogmatic rejection of all types of hierarchy is a feature of the Green level of development, and therefore a partial perspective. One common observation is that critics of hierarchy are often just as hierarchal in their thinking – they believe that hierarchy is bad and non-hierarchy is good and they insist that this is the only valid hierarchy. A criticism of this aspect of integral theory is really a criticism of Jurgen Habermas critique of post-structuralism, so it would be helpful to be familiar with this as well if this is particularly troubling to you. Habermas critique is a devastating blow, and if you know a way around it, don't hesitate to share it. Beyond this general principle, there's broad debate about the proper role of hierarchy, including no role at all, in various situations and circumstances.


Perhaps you can explain what you mean by Indian spirituality, and where you see its major failings. Mythological aspects of religion are understood to be metaphors and not to be taken literally, and the metaphysical propositions of a particular religion are not needed to understand the AQAL model. Wilber affirms the existence of gross, causal, subtle and non-dual states of spiritual experience, drawing from the experience of the mystical traditions within Christianity, Judaism and Islam as well as Eastern religions. Many forum members practice Tibetan Buddhist or Zen methods, but Christian and Sufi practices are also encouraged, and in fact, Wilber believes that Christianity will be the dominant method in the West. Wilber's most recent book, Integral Spirituality is much more explicit about all of this, including a critique of the New Age understanding of spirituality.

Finally, you say:

If your knowledge is truly “upper” then it will have more powerful tools and it will include the lower. Such a person should have the tools to communicate to those on a lower level.

Everyone has a right to be at whatever level they are at, and it is a waste of time to try to pull them up a level when they are committed to staying where they are. Change comes from a personal realization that your current model doesn't work – its not our responsibility to prove that to you. At the moment, you seem dedicated to explaining to us how closed-minded we are, how delusional we are and, most mysteriously of all, how we have a false sense of superiority, no doubt compared to your own impeccable humility and modesty. Forum members are wise to avoid being drawn into a debate with someone who has demonstrated little or no genuine desire to engage with the ideas beyond taking a few pot-shots, and who feels comfortable critiquing a work and even accusing others of lacking intellectual rigor when their own understanding of the subject is based on “skimming”