Help
Sign In
b-scan
May 2009 
B-SCAN with Steve Pavlina (Part 2)
Posted on May 2nd, 2007
by 
~C4Chaos
~C4Chaos
B-SCAN is a series of interviews with bloggers who are "consciously" aware of the impact of blogging on self, culture, and nature, integrally informed or otherwise.
Here is second part of the Pavlina interview. To read the first part, click here.
B-SCAN with Steve Pavlina: Part 2: On Integral Theory, The Law of Attraction and Subjective Reality
*** When did you encounter integral theory/philosophy? What's your opinion about it?
First I’ll address the integral materials I looked at, and then I’ll address the integral philosophy.
I think it was in early 2006 one of my readers introduced me to the integral community, and shortly thereafter I was contacted by someone from I-I, who sent me a number of products to evaluate, including Integral Spirituality, Integral Life Practice, the Integral Operating System, and a few introductory DVDs and CDs. It was months before I could begin going through it though, since I receive products from publishers every week, and my review queue normally contains 90-180 days worth of material.
My initial impression of these products was largely negative. Their physical packaging was certainly professional, but I found the actual content to be poorly presented, over-intellectualized, and badly disjointed. The custom vocabulary (which I mentally dubbed holo-speak) was a bit too cult-like for my tastes, but I didn’t have too much trouble picking it up. It was clear, however, that I couldn’t recommend these products to my audience. This isn’t to say the products don’t have some interesting ideas; they just didn’t meet my standards for a recommendation. I’m extremely picky about what I’ll recommend on my site, but I know my audience well enough to conclude these products would just end up generating a lot of negative feedback.
The one integral product I liked best was the ILP kit simply because it contains the most practical advice. For a price of $250 though and a lot of unnecessarily long-winded material to pour though, I’d recommend saving your money. The heart of ILP is simply the classic advice that you should strive for balanced development across body, mind, heart, and spirit. Take time for regular physical exercise, challenge yourself mentally and keep learning, work through your emotional (aka shadow) issues, and invest in your spiritual development. This is good advice, but I’d hardly consider it compelling or profound. Any personal development 101 book will contain similar advice but without the unnecessary complexity and high-mindedness.
In all fairness though, I doubt the integral material I evaluated was originally intended to be included in mass market products, since their presentation indicates otherwise. It seems likely someone attempted to re-purpose existing audio and video recordings in an attempt to create salable products. I’ve seen some cases where this works extremely well, but in this case I think it falls short, and the quality suffers as a result. Having developed and published many commercial software products myself and given that my wife is a self-published author, I know how difficult it is to create a good product. I’d really recommend I-I consider developing some stronger products though, since I think these are more likely to disappoint people than help them.
As far as integral theory itself goes, I was largely disappointed with it. In many ways I felt like it was stating the obvious and couching it in unnecessary complexity, as if to make the underlying concepts appear more original and profound than they really were. Telling people they need physical exercise is good advice of course, but referring to it as a “kinesthetic module” is too cult-like for my tastes. This practice reminds me a lot of Scientology. I once voluntarily joined a Scientology center for two months just to see what it was like from the inside – a rather fascinating experience.
The decomposition of human development into levels, lines, states, quadrants, and types was interesting to an extent. Overall I liked this model, and I actually use a similar paradigm, although I never bothered to formalize it as completely as the integral model.
With respect to the four quadrants (I, WE, IT, ITS), I perceive reality in a similar manner, but the quadrants I use are defined a bit differently. I think of reality primarily in terms of the subjective (I) and objective (ITS) viewpoints. I derive the other two quadrants by projecting each lens onto the other (two combinations = two additional quadrants).
In my writing, however, I focus almost exclusively on the upper left quadrant (“I”). That’s intentional, and it shouldn’t be hard to see why. Some integral enthusiasts have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that my thinking must be stuck in that quadrant, but they overlook the rather obvious fact that the theme of my web site is personal development, not biology, sociology, or politics. While I consider all four quadrants in my work as a matter of course, I normally project everything to the first quadrant and write from that point of view. This is something I do very deliberately. Why? Because it’s extremely effective. Even though I address a very large audience, I strive to connect with my visitors on a very personal level, and I’ve gotten fairly good at that. To abandon that style just so I could pay homage to the other three quadrants would be inconsistent with the site’s intended purpose… and extremely foolish to boot.
I think the quadrant-one levels of development are a bit weak compared to other models of conscious development. I’d say even Scientology has a better model there, but my current favorite is David Hawkin’s levels of consciousness scale (found in the book Power vs. Force), which has more rungs and is, in my opinion, more accurate. I’d equate the integral rung (second tier) with Hawkin’s level of reason, but I think Hawkins does a better job of identifying what exists beyond that level. Overall I’d say the entire integral model itself falls within the reason level of Hawkins’ scale.
The integral model’s biggest flaw, however, at least in terms of how I’ve seen it applied by those who purport to be its proponents, is that it assumes we must self-identify with our beliefs. In other words we as individuals are assumed to each have a fixed belief system, such as a particular philosophy or worldview. While this is generally true at the lower levels of consciousness, it needn’t be true at the higher levels.
As I’ve stated last year in my Podcast #13: Beyond Religion and in the more recent article “Spiritual Depth Perception”, I do not hold a fixed belief system. To me a belief is a lens through which we perceive reality, and no belief is reality itself. To say that one belief is better than another is to say that my sense of smell is better than my sense of taste. The whole collection is what’s important; it’s nonsensical to say that one perspective is better than another when you can consult all that are available to you.
In my writing I utilize a variety of different lenses, striving to choose the most appropriate ones for each particular article. When I write about productivity, I’ll normally write from an atheistic, objective worldview. When I write about psychic development, I’ll usually employ a more new agey lens. I do this because I find it effective to write for the audience that’s likely to be most interested in those topics.
Integral enthusiasts coming from the perspective that I must have a fixed belief system, however, will either run themselves in circles or leap to false conclusions, assuming that whatever lens I use in a particular article must be a reflection of my assumed singular belief system. That is like saying my computer must be a word processor because I use it to create articles. Just as my computer can run multiple types of software without having an identity crisis, human beings are capable of doing the same with their beliefs. Based on that logic, if you read one article and assume my personal belief system must be New Age, you could read a totally different article and be convinced I’m an atheist. The truth, however, is that I honor and value both perspectives, as well as many others.
In my opinion the integral model’s linear hierarchical structures are its main strength, but they’re also a major weakness. Much like hierarchical databases were supplanted by relational databases, I think a relational model of human development would be a more powerful lens. While there is some degree of linear progression in any field, just as there are hierarchical structures in relational databases, there are infinite variations of nonlinear connections. While to its credit the integral model does pay lip service to those connections, I believe it vastly downplays their significance.
A relational integral model, one that honors all points in the AQAL framework as equally valuable instead of trying to pigeonhole people like Brave New World inhabitants (alphas, betas, etc) – now that would be something to see. Until that happens though, I’ll be compelled to play the role of the savage.
*** Recently there had been objections by some integrally-aware people when StevePavlina.com got ranked on Holons News as being "turquoise". At KenWilber.com there was a blog post evaluating your blog as "orange-green." In fairness to them, they didn't rank your cognitive abilities as a person. The ranking was based on the content of your blog. The main criticisms were: 1) your endorsement of The Secret movie and your teachings of the Law of Attraction; 2) a casual allusion of your involvement with psychic practices (e.g. communication angels, spirit guides) with your wife, Erin, to which in the integral community is considered as "indicative of a pre-rational magical-level." How would you respond to this?
I can certainly understand why the integral community takes issue with me for covering certain topics the way I do. The model itself encourages them to position me at some arbitrary coordinates within the integral hierarchy. Various members of the integral community have labeled my development as purple, orange, green, teal, turquoise, and a few compound shades as well. So either they lack sufficient skill with the model to label me, or the model itself is flawed. If the model is so difficult to apply with any accuracy though, then in my opinion it’s of limited utility.
It’s nice that integral theory offers a method for people to evaluate their own stage of development (as do many other belief systems), but the point of such tools is to use them as self-diagnostics for your own personal development, not to color-code your social landscape like a toddler with box of crayons.
The proper application of levels of consciousness scales is to apply them on a personal level. Where are you? Where are you going? What do you need to do to get there? And especially… what would you like to experience?
I recognize that we’re all at different levels of conscious development, but the integral model vastly oversimplifies the manner in which conscious growth occurs. While there’s a certain logic to the integral hoops we’re expected to jump through in a neatly sequenced progression, real human development isn’t quite so neat and tidy.
I don’t see the point of using labels to include or exclude people, to rank certain people as more or less evolved than you are. It reminds me of the social games my daughter’s friends play at her school (she’s in first grade). One day you’re someone’s best friend; the next day you’re the outcast.
It’s been interesting watching the integral community turn green with envy at the success of The Secret. You may perceive their reaction differently, but to me it’s just plain and simple jealousy. It points to the community’s desire to be more effective, which is why they experience such vehement resistance to someone else’s success, especially someone seen as less worthy.
I also know it irks some people to no end that a solo blogger like myself can attract such a large global audience. I’m sure it also annoys the heck out of them that I’ve only been doing this for 2-1/2 years, and I have many more years ahead of me. But I earned this privilege, as did the promoters of The Secret. These were no cosmic accidents.
The core problem is that the integral community invests a great deal of energy into trying to being right (and to explain why everyone else is wrong), while the promoters of The Secret and myself are more concerned with being effective. One look at the design of the Integral Institute’s web sites makes that abundantly clear. A flash intro? C’mon, guys. Do you know what decade this is? Do you have any idea how search engines work? If you took all that negativity you’ve been directing at The Secret and myself and channeled it into a more effective web presence, you’d have much less to complain about. My own web site isn’t exactly beauty incarnate, but at least it doesn’t look like a Borg assimilation chamber.
I know I’m pushing here (feel free to blame God for assigning me this role), but in truth the integral community is always going to be upset with people like me as long as they remain preoccupied with academic fortress-building instead of actually reaching out and helping people. Why not learn from the promoters of The Secret, and strive to become more effective communicators. Drop the cult language, and use plain English. Redesign those sci-fi web sites for accessibility and ease of use. Go outside and engage people as equals instead of labeling them as unworthy of you.
Those who have a negative reaction to the success of my blog or The Secret would likely benefit greatly by applying your own 3-2-1 shadow process, or simply journal through your feelings about it. From an outsider’s perspective, it’s clear this is a huge part of the integral community’s shadow. At least understand that your attempts at destructive criticism won’t increase your effectiveness. You need to do the hard work of becoming better communicators instead, learning to connect with people where they are.
*** Your post, Subjective Reality and Nonviolence, received a mix of reactions from your readers as well as the "integral" crowd. Reactions vary, but a lot of them are negative. Some people analyzed your post as deluded, disassociated, a product of New Age thinking, and/or simply not very compassionate considering its timing. What's your reaction to this varying assessment of your blog post? What was your intentionality behind that post? What was your state of mind when you wrote that?
I understand their viewpoint. I simply don't share it. To me their approach is fear-based, self-defeating, and disempowering.
They filter the VA Tech event through a value system that labels it as tragic, as if this is some kind of cosmic mistake that was never supposed to happen. They label the shooter as crazy. They label anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint as crazy or lacking empathy. "Ours is the one true perspective, and if you disagree, you're insane, deluded, or otherwise wrong." This is what is supposedly passes for integral thinking.
Such a close-minded response isn't helpful. It will only perpetuate the violence. It may be socially acceptable to condemn violence and to label those who commit violent acts as crazy, deluded, or "less evolved than thou" on the ladder of consciousness, but that isn't what I'd call a genuinely compassionate response.
The reason I made such a post was to challenge the prevailing viewpoint that death, even a violent one, is somehow a tragedy. I knew it would be controversial, and the integral community's response certainly isn't surprising. I wanted to encourage people to question their socially conditioned beliefs and to consider alternative ways of looking at the situation, especially those that give rise to compassionate action instead of righteous finger pointer.
Since I don't hold myself to a fixed perspective, I'm always asking, "What's the most empowering way to view this situation? Which interpretation will best serve the highest good of all? How can I continue to stimulate people to grow?" Again, effectiveness is my guide.
Is it truly effective to label the VA Tech shooting as tragic, to condemn those involved, to feel sad for the supposed victims? How does that response serve the greater good in any meaningful way? It may be socially acceptable, and you may pat yourself on the back for the feeling of belongingness that comes from joining the outrage bandwagon, but in the grand scheme of things such a response is highly ineffective (and extremely dualistic as well). In the end nothing changes.
Effectiveness always begins with you. If you do not personally change, your impact on others will not change either. I know a lot of people disagree with my interpretation of the VA Tech shooting, but to me it's a matter of finding the most effective personal response. What am I going to do about it? This means I must find my own personal meaning in the event. In so doing I must take 100% responsibility for it. If you perceive that mindset as deluded, fine. But it works for me. It keeps me focused on solutions, on what I can personally do to make a difference in the world.
To me the VA Tech shooting isn't a tragedy at all. It's a lesson. It's a call to action. You may abdicate that responsibility. I don't. If I see things in the world I want to change, I hold myself personally accountable for changing them.
The integral community's response to VA Tech was largely the same general outrage pattern that runs through our mass media, with a bit of added nuance and a twist of faux compassion to make it sound more noble. But real compassion calls us to generate and implement practical solutions, not merely to repeat circular patterns that we know to be ineffective.
The message I found in the VA Tech shooting as well as the integral community's response is that I need to do more to help people overcome their fear of death. One small practical step I took in that direction was to write an article with the intention of helping people release some of that fear: "Making Peace With Death". Based on the feedback I've been getting, I can see this article is stimulating people to think. That's good. It's having an impact. It may be only a small impact at this point, but it's a step in the right direction. Over the next several years, that article will be read by millions of people around the world. Many will dismiss it, but for some it will be just the catalyst they needed to experience a personal breakthrough.
One article won't change the world overnight, nor will 600, but little by little they're making a difference.
I believe most of our major problems can be solved by effecting a global shift in consciousness away from fear-based thinking. So that's my top priority. I couldn't ask for a more interesting -- and fulfilling -- challenge.
People can lob as many personal attacks my way as they wish. They can label me all the colors of the rainbow, call me crazy, try to turn my own words against me. I'm just going to forgive them and keep doing what I came here to do. As Buddha reportedly said, "When someone offers you a gift, and you decline to accept it, to whom does the gift belong?"
(to continue see B-SCAN with Steve Pavlina: Part 3: On Psychic Development, Passion and Purpose)
Access: Public
thanks so much c4 for your due dilligence in making this happen - and for helping to even further differentiate grounded integrated spirituality (not to mention integral which isn't even really part of this discussion, seriously..) from well-meaning new age confusion, materialism and psychic inflation.
*favorite moment: (i actually loved this!)*
“It’s nice that integral theory offers a method for people to evaluate their own stage of development (as do many other belief systems), but the point of such tools is to use them as self-diagnostics for your own personal development, not to color-code your social landscape like a toddler with box of crayons.”
you go! that was really funny - and fair comment.
actually my point about the color coding thing is that it should definitely NOT be used in that superficial way to self-assess - as everyone predictably chooses to identify as being at the high end. it's much more useful as away of thinking about evolutionary waves, conflicting worldviews in politics and philosophy etc…
first of all steve you make some astute comments about the problem of over-simplified shorthand. the problem is not however - as you suggest - the simplicity of the integral model - rather it is it's complexity and the necessity of coming up with shorthand as a way of talking about incredibly complex sets of ideas - granted though, you have a point - they are generally poorly used by those in the know and not at all understood by those outside the jargon - this can seem cultish - technically i dont think it is - but the problem is one of the complexity of integral theory and attempts to talk about it using shorthand. i trust us toddlers can keep working on that one…. and i doubt you have had much exposure to integral theory in depth beyond the admittedly weak products you looked at..
bear in mind that commercial success and spiritual insight actually have nothing to do with eachother, just as being born into millions, being physicallly attractive, getting sent to auschwitz or staring down the barrel of a mad mass-murderer has nothing at all to do with your “intentions”… this is a classic new age mistake - and it's based in massive shadow avoidance regarding the reality of suffering, chaos and power imbalances- doubtless what you would call a fear based worldview. which is ironic because psychologically speaking it is the fear of those things that leads to the kinds of dissociated sophomoric new age philosophies you propose - as i will point out.
while it is great that you focus on the upper left quadrant - hence “personal development” there is a difference between that necessary focus and a crazy reductionism in which you assume that everything is caused by the uppper left (ie personal conscious intentions) - this is oversimplified and superficial - it also happens to be wrong.
bear in mind to that i t's pretty easy in our consumer/materialistic society to package superficial nonsense that equates wealth with spirituality for the masses - if that's your game, and of course with a little luck - wait…. i mean cosmic assistance - or should that say angelic intervention? psychic foreknowledge?
ok my bad - this guy isn't new age at all - what was i thinking?!
now, on to the rest of your somewhat predictable responses:
oh boy.
what is there to add to these clunkers?:
clunker number 1) “ They filter the VA Tech event through a value system that labels it as tragic, as if this is some kind of cosmic mistake that was never supposed to happen. They label the shooter as crazy. They label anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint as crazy or lacking empathy. “Ours is the one true perspective, and if you disagree, you're insane, deluded, or otherwise wrong.” This is what is supposedly passes for integral thinking.”
umm actually it's just sane adult thinking steve - one doesn't need to be integrally-minded to see that cho was certifiably crazy or that a massacre in which 33 people die (that's lose their lives in case that label isn't clear to you) senselessly is tragic. these are some labels that are not really up for question. or, wait…..i can smell some cosmic narcissism around the corner….. :O)
oh! here it is:
clunker number 2) “I know I’m pushing here (feel free to blame God for assigning me this role)”
what a surprise! - and here:
clunker number 3) “I also know it irks some people to no end that a solo blogger like myself can attract such a large global audience. I’m sure it also annoys the heck out of them that I’ve only been doing this for 2-1/2 years, and I have many more years ahead of me. But I earned this privilege, as did the promoters of The Secret. These were no cosmic accidents.”
ah yes the cosmos “wants” rhonda byrne and steve pavlina to bring the true and effective spiritual message to the world and not the oversimplified nonsesne of integral theory. their bank balance proves it….
let's see…. how does the cosmos feel about the bush presidency, the genocide in rwanda, oprah winfrey's choice of hairdresser, men in africa who think raping a virgin will cure them of an HIV infection, my blocked sink? i am sure i called just the right plumber based on the cosmic numerology of the divine search engine…..oops shit i just dialed up a flu virus - shit!
clunker number 4) “Is it truly effective to label the VA Tech shooting as tragic, to condemn those involved, to feel sad for the supposed victims? How does that response serve the greater good in any meaningful way? It may be socially acceptable, and you may pat yourself on the back for the feeling of belongingness that comes from joining the outrage bandwagon, but in the grand scheme of things such a response is highly ineffective (and extremely dualistic as well). In the end nothing changes.”
ah, yes it's dualistic, - (classic misuse of the term) not to mention a waste of time, to feel deep sadness or outrage at a violent massacre. one should “choose” one's emotions based on effectiveness?! classic new age/tony robbins-esque misunderstanding of psychology.
effectiveness/efficiency/productivity/mastery are fine goals in and of themselves but do not equal spiritual depth/soulfulness.
financial success is a marvelous thing but it does not equal truth, beauty, goodness or spiritual depth/soulfulness.
your success must feel great steve and your writing is good, your sense of what the market wants is dead-on but please shrink your head a little and realize this does not mean that god has chosen you or that the comic synchronicity machine is on your side….cause life deals all sorts of curve balls and i would hate to see you adding insult to injury by blaming yourself if/when life's share of tragedy pays a visit… which is the unintended side-effect of this very problematic magical thinking on a lot of people.
oh fuck i just saw that you called the VA Tech slain “supposed victims” in my last quote above……
speechless.
dude.
c4?
pelle?
colin?
oh yeah this is “stage-appropriate”, right?
yeah we need a wave of people oput there buying anew into the idea that is a “spiritual truth” - a “law of the universe” that if you or someone you love gets killed like this (or gets their legs blown off in iraq for that mattter) not only is it not a cosmic accident, but you are certainly not a “victim”.
didn't we deal with this nonsense in the 90's already?!
maybe i was wrong - maybe SP needs to do some drugs? it might shake him out of this adolescent nonsense….
gotta run - i can hear the Right Speech police around the corner……
i knew it. what took you so long? i can see that you're going through some predictable responses there already, Julian.
i'm not gonna go through the New Age angle because it's already a beaten path. i've already posted my take on your (and Wilber's) feasting on The Secret and LOA.
as for VA Tech, Pavlina has a different take on it. his perspective is coming from a subjective angle influenced by the model of reality that he's chosen. now, i don't totally agree with him. but focusing our energy on proving his worldview wrong has very little value. might as well call him a jerk or an a-hole, and be done with it. i don't think Pavlina will take offense to that. he gets it a lot on his forum already :)
i agree with your analysis (e.g. that Pavlina seem to have a not-so deep understanding of Integral theory–yes, the problem is complexity and making it more simple, and that he's made a lot of New agey statements). for example, this statement illustrates that Pavlina hasn't heard Wilber say that human development is messy and that development is still a mystery.
“I recognize that we’re all at different levels of conscious development, but the integral model vastly oversimplifies the manner in which conscious growth occurs. While there’s a certain logic to the integral hoops we’re expected to jump through in a neatly sequenced progression, real human development isn’t quite so neat and tidy.”
i can already hear Wilber saying, “i already said that in my upteenth book on footnote #33, he's basically agreeing with me and using that to criticize my position!” :) but can you really blame Pavlina for this? gee, ok, he's not a geeky integral scholar. what a big human flaw! ;)
but anyway, Julian, i have yet to see you turn the “integral” lens to I-I/IN/Wilber. that's one of the purposes of this interview: to turn the lens back to I-I/IN/Wilber/and peeps with Wilberitis :)
in a way i'm glad that it turned out this way, because if Pavlina ended up in an IN interview then i doubt that he would have a chance to critique I-I, probably because Wilber would have done most of the talking :)
so allow me to focus the lens on Pavlina's rightful critique of the integral community and I-I.
“I can certainly understand why the integral community takes issue with me for covering certain topics the way I do. The model itself encourages them to position me at some arbitrary coordinates within the integral hierarchy. Various members of the integral community have labeled my development as purple, orange, green, teal, turquoise, and a few compound shades as well. So either they lack sufficient skill with the model to label me, or the model itself is flawed. If the model is so difficult to apply with any accuracy though, then in my opinion it’s of limited utility.”
based on my experience and interaction with “integral” peeps, Pavlina's observation is correct. because the model “encourages” to position people at some arbitrary coordinates (e.g. that guy has a center of gravity of Green, he's soo not second-tier!, etc.), people casually use colors to judge other people, even though Spiral Dynamics is clear that those are the colors (vMemes) “in” people, not colors of people. this doesn't make the model useless, but people in the integral community tend to make a habit out of this, as if playing pin the color on the new age donkey.
also, the “center of gravity” shorthand that Wilber uses is still questionable, as well as the first and second tier distinctions. case in point: here's what Chris Cowan (one of the authors of Spiral Dynamics) has to say about “tierism”:
“…putting much emphasis on first tier, second tier distinctions may be following a false—or at least unimportant—trail, and that projecting future tiers is at worst an exercise in hubris, at best one left up to religionists…. We suggest that readers be cautious of 'tier-ants' because what is presented as Spiral Dynamics theory may well be projections and dreams that have little to do with the model. In our view, that is not a proper use of this theory and turns it from a scientific/epistemological framework into an exclusionary quasi-religion for self-anointed elites. Because the spiral is hierarchical and expanding, there are differences among the levels. But they're not so easy to grasp as the tierants would have us believe, nor as easily categorized. And a word of practical caution: when someone displays a need to tell you proudly that they or their organization “second tier,” check very carefully; they probably aren't. ”
but of course, if you believe Wilber (and Beck), Cowan is just simply being “green” :)
so why do you think I-I stopped using SD colors and replaced it with altitude colors? hmm. i sense disagreements (or commercial conflicts) with Beck, and, of course, with Cowan. so there, even the think tanks have disagreements in the use of colors. whaddyatink? what does that tell you about the model itself? maybe that's why Pavlina had never adopted it. maybe that's why people disagree with it. maybe that's why people get bored with it. maybe the model has some serious flaws. i don't know. do you?
“The core problem is that the integral community invests a great deal of energy into trying to being right (and to explain why everyone else is wrong), while the promoters of The Secret and myself are more concerned with being effective. One look at the design of the Integral Institute’s web sites makes that abundantly clear. A flash intro? C’mon, guys. Do you know what decade this is? Do you have any idea how search engines work? If you took all that negativity you’ve been directing at The Secret and myself and channeled it into a more effective web presence, you’d have much less to complain about. My own web site isn’t exactly beauty incarnate, but at least it doesn’t look like a Borg assimilation chamber. ”
i don't agree with Pavlina that the reaction is rooted in jealousy. i think there is a genuine intention on the part of I-I and the integral community to point out the absurdities inherent in The Secret. however, most of the time, the conversations end up in echo chambers, preaching to the choir, while doing second-tier high fives. but guess what, does it advance the discussion if you're not getting through to the people you ought to be reaching in the first place? Pavlina is correct, the energy could otherwise be focused on making I-I more effective. and in the words of John Naisbitt, HAVING TO BE RIGHT SHACKLES YOUR MIND.
and, btw, my bad, because i contributed to the Borg look and feel ;)
“Why not learn from the promoters of The Secret, and strive to become more effective communicators. Drop the cult language, and use plain English. Redesign those sci-fi web sites for accessibility and ease of use. Go outside and engage people as equals instead of labeling them as unworthy of you.”
that's exactly what i said too. so i guess, i'm in the New age camp now, ah well… but at least i'm not yet vegetarian ;)
“Those who have a negative reaction to the success of my blog or The Secret would likely benefit greatly by applying your own 3-2-1 shadow process, or simply journal through your feelings about it. From an outsider’s perspective, it’s clear this is a huge part of the integral community’s shadow. At least understand that your attempts at destructive criticism won’t increase your effectiveness. You need to do the hard work of becoming better communicators instead, learning to connect with people where they are.”
ouch! i mean, right on! seriously, the integral community should take into consideration the observations of outsiders so as not to get caught up in echo chambers. in other words, eschew obfuscations, man!
that's it for now. i have more to say about this. maybe i'll do a personal reflection and turn the lens to myself after posting part 3 of the interview.
you may not see it, Julian (yes, i'm assuming here, because you continue to focus on your crusade against Pavlina), but there are gems to be picked up from this Pavlina interview.
~C
I am so mixed in regards to this particular B-Scan. Lots and lots of observations come up for me. Interestingly, I find this response from Pavlina a mixed bag.
Unlike Julian, who seems to keep banging on the “bad” on Pavlina's responses, without engaging the whole, and making generalizations from the bad, I'll simply analyze each section.
So much, from my context, is right on, and yet some is “right off” as well. I'm thinking this discussion is more useful at I-I, but, since I can't start a thread there…here goes.
“My initial impression of these products was largely negative. Their physical packaging was certainly professional, but I found the actual content to be poorly presented, over-intellectualized, and badly disjointed. The custom vocabulary (which I mentally dubbed holo-speak) was a bit too cult-like for my tastes, but I didn’t have too much trouble picking it up.”
I've often thought the same, but Pavlina states this in a clear way. He mitigates this criticism with “making products/materials is hard”, which is true.
” The one integral product I liked best was the ILP kit simply because it contains the most practical advice.”
Also, about 80% right, I believe, as an owner of the ILP Kit.
“The decomposition of human development into levels, lines, states, quadrants, and types was interesting to an extent. Overall I liked this model, and I actually use a similar paradigm, although I never bothered to formalize it as completely as the integral model.”
Well, yes. That and the 4 quadrants are what I like about the model as well.
“In my writing, however, I focus almost exclusively on the upper left quadrant (“I”). That’s intentional, and it shouldn’t be hard to see why. ”
I made that point, in defense of Pavlina, elswhere.
However, an exception - he assumes the close. People who can simply “pick up” and self-develop. Social systems where one CAN simply express, or be free. Also, doesn't get into the large tendency of narcissism in self-development, which has been ably documented by Julian and others. And Julian has a point that many highly functional people can AVOID the necessary shadow work, by simply being highly functional. In “What Really Matters: Searching for Wisdom In America”, Tony Schwartz profiles a man, who went from a horrible past, to being an incredibly valuable and highly productive, member of society. But he would have “blow-ups”, because he didn't deal with some of his psychological trauma, and so wasn't balanced.
Basically, Pavlina strikes me as a very useful “how-to” guy, if you have no hang-ups, have good self-will, and live in a fairly free society. Or, like the individual profiled by Tony Schwartz, if you need to be effective, and have the willpower to do so - even if you DO have some hang-ups.
“I’d say even Scientology has a better model there, but my current favorite is David Hawkin’s levels of consciousness scale (found in the book Power vs. Force), which has more rungs and is, in my opinion, more accurate. I’d equate the integral rung (second tier) with Hawkin’s level of reason, but I think Hawkins does a better job of identifying what exists beyond that level. Overall I’d say the entire integral model itself falls within the reason level of Hawkins’ scale.”
No idea who Hawkins is, never read Power vs. Force. Any help here?
“The integral model’s biggest flaw, however, at least in terms of how I’ve seen it applied by those who purport to be its proponents, is that it assumes we must self-identify with our beliefs. In other words we as individuals are assumed to each have a fixed belief system, such as a particular philosophy or worldview. While this is generally true at the lower levels of consciousness, it needn’t be true at the higher levels”
This isn't true of integral, in theory - people can be all over the place - but in practice, there does occur a distressingly amount of labelling, half, or even more of which, isn't accurate, but is inaccurate generalization and projection. And yes, “being right”.
“To me a belief is a lens through which we perceive reality, and no belief is reality itself. To say that one belief is better than another is to say that my sense of smell is better than my sense of taste. The whole collection is what’s important; it’s nonsensical to say that one perspective is better than another when you can consult all that are available to you”.
Well, of course, THAT is a belief itself. So is of limited utility - and integral theory as I understand it, wouldn't disagree with the statement above, but would embrace it, as part of a functional and enabled “turquoise” being. As well, when you throw something up, it comes down. So gravity isn't a “belief”, at it's core. You can't change gravity by thinking it different after all!
“In my writing I utilize a variety of different lenses, striving to choose the most appropriate ones for each particular article. When I write about productivity, I’ll normally write from an atheistic, objective worldview. When I write about psychic development, I’ll usually employ a more new agey lens. I do this because I find it effective to write for the audience that’s likely to be most interested in those topics.”
Non-controversial.
“It’s been interesting watching the integral community turn green with envy at the success of The Secret. You may perceive their reaction differently, but to me it’s just plain and simple jealousy”
Well, there's some interesting projection! Quite a defensive interpretation! People actually care about the ideas, what has truth. Not “green with envy”, that is just silly.
Strange as well - why can't any of these guys - and I'm including Wilber here - handle criticism without immediately defaulting to “they do it because of there stuff/they don't understand what I'm saying?” I think it is because there are such “criticisms with an agenda”, that people who are “out there”, whether Pavlina, Wilber, a politician, etc, that should NOT be listened to - that this becomes the default lens that criticisms are heard through.
“In my opinion the integral model’s linear hierarchical structures are its main strength, but they’re also a major weakness. Much like hierarchical databases were supplanted by relational databases, I think a relational model of human development would be a more powerful lens. While there is some degree of linear progression in any field, just as there are hierarchical structures in relational databases, there are infinite variations of nonlinear connections. While to its credit the integral model does pay lip service to those connections, I believe it vastly downplays their significance.”
Interesting point. Don't know how useful it is, one way or another, but a fresh take on integral.
“The core problem is that the integral community invests a great deal of energy into trying to being right (and to explain why everyone else is wrong),
Um, yeah, unfortunately - we - and I include myself - do have this tendency.
“…while the promoters of The Secret and myself are more concerned with being effective.”
Again, I would say, if you are already a balanced, healthy, smart individual in a free society, THEN yes, you can be more effective. But nothing about service here, the OTHER, and so a very narcissistic view. As well as blaming people for both their social conditions, and their early childhood issues impacting on them now.
This isn't very conscious, or enlightened.
(On the natural reaction to Vtech)
” I understand their viewpoint. I simply don't share it. To me their approach is fear-based, self-defeating, and disempowering.”
There is AN ELEMENT of truth to this. The way the media frenzy becomes all-encompassing, the way that we all “grieve on cue”. The way that people in the United States - including integralists - seem compelled to speak about the Vtech tragedy, while remaining silent about similar, if not worse, tragedies in the world.
There is something to be said for calm, equanimous taking in of the tragedy, without joining it, and acting from that place of “what is the highest good?”
But as Julian ably notes - this can also be disassociative. Who can say where someone is coming from, in a particular person?
One look at the design of the Integral Institute’s web sites makes that abundantly clear. A flash intro? C’mon, guys. Do you know what decade this is? Do you have any idea how search engines work? If you took all that negativity you’ve been directing at The Secret and myself and channeled it into a more effective web presence, you’d have much less to complain about. My own web site isn’t exactly beauty incarnate, but at least it doesn’t look like a Borg assimilation chamber.”
Well, that's a tech geek and his design opinio. Has some truth to it.
“They filter the VA Tech event through a value system that labels it as tragic, as if this is some kind of cosmic mistake that was never supposed to happen.”
This is always the deep ungraspable. Things happen as they happen - Bush, Katrina, Iraq, VTech. The world as is, happens. The world happening does not effect the center of the Self, as a wave doesn't effect the ocean. Create peace in yourself (your Self), and then effect the world through your peace, generating more peace. This inner peace does radiate, and affect those around you, as there is NO SEPARATION.
We all agree with that.
Of course, where is that quote from Pavlina coming from? From an individuals' IDEA of oneness? From a deep wellspring of the realization of oneness?
It makes quite a difference. The confusing of THOUGHT with the confusion of the Self. Interestingly though -
“To me the VA Tech shooting isn't a tragedy at all. It's a lesson. It's a call to action. You may abdicate that responsibility. I don't. If I see things in the world I want to change, I hold myself personally accountable for changing them.
The integral community's response to VA Tech was largely the same general outrage pattern that runs through our mass media, with a bit of added nuance and a twist of faux compassion to make it sound more noble. But real compassion calls us to generate and implement practical solutions, not merely to repeat circular patterns that we know to be ineffective.”
Definitely has some truth.
To be repetitive, Pavlina's “action recommendations” - you must do some action to change yourself, or the world, you must come to a new understanding - is true.
But from an “understanding recommendation”, to orient oneself in alignment with both spirit and the world as it is - accepting the nature of matter, accepting the nature of the psyche, and the developmental model, recognizing the larger social realm in which one swims, recognizing at time, SPIRIT demands “not my will but thine - this integral understanding has much more to recommend it.
And WITH that understanding, this orientation the “next action to take', for a particular individual, becomes more in alignment with spirit, soul, and nature.
I enjoyed the interview very much.
Big Question:
Who and what exactly is the Integral Comunity? I do not see any homogenous constellation. Not in North America, not on Europe not elsewhere. its time to map out this landscape more precisely.
The same interview could be conducted with Tony Robbins or any other Personal Development coach. it would be very interesting and revealing. For LL, LR and UR Quadrant in similar wayss.
The big AQAL view of time, space and evolution has thousands of emerging islands and
older shifting structures and landscapes. Who will draw them?
See for example This funny one..
ebuddha: why can't any of these guys - and I'm including Wilber here - handle criticism without immediately defaulting to “they do it because of there stuff/they don't understand what I'm saying?”
I'm not saying that Wilber's farts don't stink, but in his defense, 9 times out of 10 his critics don't understand what he's saying, or at least don't get the big picture. They virtually all focus on one or two details, take them out of context, and then judge the whole theory based on those few points. And I agree with Wilber that there's no real point in wasting much energy debating with critics like these.
Unfortunately, a lot of people in the “integral community” don't quite get it either (and I'm sure there are things that I get wrong, too), which is the other thing critics, including Pavlina apparently, love to use in their criticisms of “Wilberian” integral theory. And that's just silly.
Anyway, yeah, Pavlina makes one or two points that are worth some thought, but too much of the rest makes it all too clear that he can't really be trusted to say much of anything meaningful when it comes to spiritual development. Not to say that he doesn't say some meaningful things in that regard, but it takes too much effort to tease the meaningful out of the nonsense, IMO. And unfortunately some of it is just plain dangerous, which, I would imagine, is why Julian has been so… enthusiastic about his criticisms of Pavlina, and not because he's “projecting”.
Cheers,
Grey
Albert said: “Who and what exactly is the Integral Comunity? I do not see any homogenous constellation. Not in North America, not on Europe not elsewhere. its time to map out this landscape more precisely.”
good question. imho, in this context, integral community = people who are familiar and gather around Wilber's work. especially those who think they are being “integral” while others aren't :)
having said that, it's unfortunate that integral is almost always being equated with Wilber. but what can i do? Wilber is the Microsoft of Integral Operating Systems wherein resistance to the blue screen of death is deemed to be green or partial. hah! that's my stupid meta-free-phor all for the day :)
~C
This was a pretty interesting interview. C4Chaos, I think its worth remembering that the point of having a dialog with Pavlina was so that he could demonstrate his own integral awareness, not so that we could turn the integral lens back on Wilber. Although that's a worthwhile exercise, let's not lose focus here. Do you think that Pavlina was able to demonstrate an integral awareness in this interview? I thought his analysis of the biggest flaw with integral thinking was interesting:
[Integral theory] assumes we must self-identify with our beliefs. In other words we as individuals are assumed to each have a fixed belief system, such as a particular philosophy or worldview. While this is generally true at the lower levels of consciousness, it needn’t be true at the higher levels.
This is just painful to read. One thing that struck me was that Pavlina believes that by focusing exclusively on the first person perspective, he can be more effective. This is the exact opposite of what integral theory suggests, which is to integrate truths from all four quadrants. At this point, how can Pavlina have any claim at all to an integral perspective? He specifically denies that he needs one! At least for his website.
This seals the deal for me: To say that one belief is better than another is to say that my sense of smell is better than my sense of taste. Just to avoid labeling people, which admittedly can get out of hand, I won't go to the color scheme, but this is a performative contradiction. Pavlina seems to hold one belief system to be superior to all the others: the belief that all beliefs are equal.
And in all fairness, Pavlina promotes David Hawkins hierarchy of consciousness, which is a scale from 1 to 1000, and an individual's level of consciousness can be measured objectively through their physical body, using deltoid muscle resistance. Any hierarchy could be used for ranking, but saying you can actually measure level of consciousness precisely like its blood pressure practically begs us to do it.
One final note: I will grant that Pavlina is extremely effective at what he does and I have no wish for him to stop blogging. I'd like to see engage in a more serious study of Integral theory, or at least spirituality rather than blowing it off as “ineffective” mentalizing and theorizing. Right view is the beginning of the eightfold path. But I don't think his accusations of jealousy are on the mark – I-I is mainly an academic operation, apparently aimed at training teachers and serious students. The audience and goal is very different, and popularity and broad appeal are not necessary.
Mr. Teacup said: “This was a pretty interesting interview. C4Chaos, I think its worth remembering that the point of having a dialog with Pavlina was so that he could demonstrate his own integral awareness, not so that we could turn the integral lens back on Wilber. Although that's a worthwhile exercise, let's not lose focus here. Do you think that Pavlina was able to demonstrate an integral awareness in this interview?”
sorry to disappoint you bro. but my intention was two-fold. first, you're right, so that Pavlina could demonstrate his own integral awareness, but not necessarily Wilber's version of integral. second, so that he can voice his response to I-I and offer a critique the same way I-I/IN did a rather trigger-happy critique on him. so, no, i did not lose focus, i'm trying to use a bigger lens.
but to answer your question, i say, no. imho, Pavlina did not demonstrate an integral awareness, in the context of the AQAL model. but stay tuned for part 3. it gets more interesting :)
~C
I wish these HUGE subjects weren't all jammed into one blog like this. Oh well.
Highlights– thanks for posting a critique of Integral thought, because I haven't run across one until now. But I wasn't looking for one either. Steve writes that the integral community is always going to be upset with people like me as long as they remain preoccupied with academic fortress-building. As an academic, I don't see “the Integral community” or even Integral Institute as “academic.” Ken Wilber states that he chose not to develop his career within academia because he didn't see it necessary to get degrees in order to develop his scholarship or his work. And I totally agree with him. Who needs academia? The whole “integral movement” if you want to call it that, has developed more-or-less as a stand alone rather purist enterprise. And that's ok. Who cares? Their significant contribution is made. But I want to be clear that this contribution has not been made WITHIN the competitive environment that is academia. To be very clear, I think Ken is obviously a genius, and his scholarship is astounding and inspiring. There may be “fortress building” going on, but it isn't particularly academic. I think many academics are embracing his ideas, and using them in parts and parcels, writing dissertations and theses that incorporate his ideas and then defending them in academic forums, but I think Integral Institute and the “integral community” may be more of an intellectual social movement than an academic phenomenon. I realize I've the point I'm trying to make isn't that interesting (even to me :) but I think in the interests of accuracy, someone should try to make it. And maybe I'm wrong. What do I know about what goes on everywhere?
My voice is not going to be absolute. I like to use a more tentative voice, because for me reality is often (but not always) tentative.
I started to write about another issue but erased it. The only other issue I'd like to bring up is VA Tech. I appreciate Steve's courage in writing about the events of Apr. 16, 2007 as a “lesson.” I can resonate with the spirit in which he holds a mirror up to us, so we can watch our emotions emerge and bounce around. And I agree that we must all frame our understanding of these events in the way that it is most constructive for us. I do differ from Steve in my opinion of how these events are most effectively framed. If I see these events as a “lesson,” and, because I believe that our souls are immortal, see these deaths as a necessary aspect of this lesson, I think that the “lens” of my consciousness has “panned out” pretty much as far as it can–and too far for me to be comfortable. The events are absolutely tragic, and I want to feel sadness and loss, and I want to understand this pain. To me it is more effective to frame the events in terms of the suffering they have caused and continue to cause, and in terms of the great loss that humanity has endured by losing these human beings. It is compassion that I want to feel. I want to respond with love, and I want that love to move me to do things like be gentle with people, and to blog here about tenderness and compassion and so on. The controversial thing about my view of the tragedy is that I see the man who did the shooting as a victim also. Obviously he was off his nut for a long time, and he simply bumped around friendless, unconnected. His society could not accommodate him or help him. Our world is such an alienating place. Personally, I could never figure out what “alienation” meant until I was about 23. I would read the definition, but it meant nothing to me. Then one day I had an epiphany: I WAS “alienation.” That was the texture of my ENTIRE LIFE. I discovered that some people felt much more connected and much more as if they belonged in the world than I did–that it was even possible to FEEL that way. So, I don't think distancing ourselves from the “lesson” is a helpful frame. Yes, I see a lesson in the tragedy, but deeply, humanly, spiritually, it is a tragedy.
Again, C4, thanks for posting Mr. Pavlina's blog. I learn new stuff on Zaadz all the time. Thanks for helping me!
C4, thx a lot for your continued efforts to present a spectrum of genuin approaches . I simply like your style and Tornado like power of beeing yourself.:)Enriches me so much!
Thank you so much,
Anitta
Hmm… not sure what to think of this last comment, C. I mean, “integral” is integral regardless of how any particular system prefers to define it, and a person can be integral without knowing a lick about Wilber. As I'm sure you know, Wilber repeatedly says that the scales he uses are just a convention he prefers to use, but that any other scale (assuming it's valid, of course) can be used, too.
So anyway, I don't see how you can imply that Pavlina isn't integral by the AQAL scale but might be by some other scale. Either he demonstrates (on average, nobody's perfect) an integral worldview or he doesn't, whether you're talking Graves, SDi, Maslow, or any other “valid” scale of development (e.g. not Hawkins' levels of consciousness, at least not as Pavlina himself has presented them).
But maybe we need to see part 3 in order to understand what you're saying here.
Grey
Martha, thanks for joining this discussion.
martha said: “As an academic, I don't see “the Integral community” or even Integral Institute as “academic.” Ken Wilber states that he chose not to develop his career within academia because he didn't see it necessary to get degrees in order to develop his scholarship or his work. And I totally agree with him. Who needs academia?”
actually, one of the main purposes of I-I is to get into and influence academia, hence the partnership with JFK university, as well as building vast library of integral books.
“To be very clear, I think Ken is obviously a genius, and his scholarship is astounding and inspiring.”
i agree.
“The controversial thing about my view of the tragedy is that I see the man who did the shooting as a victim also. Obviously he was off his nut for a long time, and he simply bumped around friendless, unconnected.”
i share that view as well. and the media is still feasting on his fallen nut. his face is all over the tabloids.
thanks!
~C
Grey said: “Hmm… not sure what to think of this last comment, C. I mean, “integral” is integral regardless of how any particular system prefers to define it, and a person can be integral without knowing a lick about Wilber.”
ok bro. i meant Pavlina did not demonstrate a deep understanding of the AQAL model, at least in this part of the interview. big deal. it took Wilber how many books to explain his model? man, i'm still catching up with his integral calculus! :)
“So anyway, I don't see how you can imply that Pavlina isn't integral by the AQAL scale but might be by some other scale. Either he demonstrates (on average, nobody's perfect) an integral worldview or he doesn't, whether you're talking Graves, SDi, Maslow, or any other “valid” scale of development (e.g. not Hawkins' levels of consciousness, at least not as Pavlina himself has presented them).”
um, ok. let's use the Maslow's scale then. if you look at Pavlina's mission statement, he seems to be way up there, fulfilling his BEING needs at this time. my point is, AQAL stands for quadrants, levels, lines, states, types, and yep, it includes subpersonalities with their own levels and lines as well, gah! that's how complex the integral model can be. yet people are trying to pin Pavlina (or other people) down using AQAL by citing a few blog posts. a few blog posts! :)
as for the Hawkins levels of consciousness, i have his book but i haven't read it yet. so i don't have an informed opinion about it.
~C
C: if you look at Pavlina's mission statement, he seems to be way up there, fulfilling his BEING needs at this time.
Again, not sure. And that's not just a polite way of disagreeing with you. I'm really not sure. I mean, my gut feeling is that his extreme focus on effectiveness is coming more from deficiency needs than being needs. OK, he's out there trying to help others to be as effective as he is, but that in itself isn't proof of being stably at a being needs level. Could be more about just attracting attention to himself.
yet people are trying to pin Pavlina down using AQAL by citing a few blog posts. a few blog posts! :)
OK, but it seems to me that LoA is so clearly not evolved spirituality (just to avoid the term “integral”) that the guy would have to have several sub-personality problems to promote it explicitly and implicitly the way he does. I mean, if a guy posts one blog that says “I think we should all sacrifice goats in the name of our god”, then I don't think you'd be far off to say that that person is not “integral”. ;-)
OK, a bit of an exaggerated example, but the point is I don't see much of a gray area in the way Pavlina talks about LoA. Maybe the actual original idea is more sound and recognizes the distinction between the true Self and the egoic self (don't know, haven't researched it), but Pavlina clearly seems to be confused on that very crucial point, and falling into that pre/trans trap so wholeheartedly (you can see it underlying most of his stuff, not just the VA Tech and The Secret blogs where it comes out in full force) isn't particularly integral.
Anyway, 'nuff Pavlina pigeon-holing for me. ;-)
Grey
“OK, but it seems to me that LoA is so clearly not evolved spirituality (just to avoid the term “integral”) that the guy would have to have several sub-personality problems to promote it explicitly and implicitly the way he does.”
yeah. i can see what you mean.
“I mean, if a guy posts one blog that says “I think we should all sacrifice goats in the name of our god”, then I don't think you'd be far off to say that that person is not “integral”. ;-) ”
LOL. good point. but the guy could just be kidding or maybe just doing a meta-free-phor all :)
“Anyway, 'nuff Pavlina pigeon-holing for me. ;-) ”
you're right. i'm getting tired of this too. good thing Pavlina doesn't take us too seriously :)
btw, here's part 3. i can sense more pigeon-holing looming on the horizon…
~C
Yeah, at the end of the day, the point is that it's damned hard to categorize a person as being “at” a given level no matter how much of their blog you read, and the purpose of this whole debate (and indeed the exercise of categorizing stuff out there) should really just be to do some self-reflection and learn a thing or two from everyone involved.
Peace brutha' (guess I watch too much Lost…)
Grey
I resonate with Julian's comments above. I will add a point, though. It's great to see people share their own takes on the issue of newage junk, but as we move into the realm of mature critical thought, sheer pluralism of opinions and everyone's right to defere, defy and differ does bring us any closer to clarity. There remains the question of depth and integrity and truthfulness, even when statements are not formulated perfectly, and vice versa. It's a question of degree, but a crucial one.
It may not be so obvious, but Pavlina has no grasp of the integral approach, since he uses technical concepts in a way he finds useful to establish his own agenda. “Integrally informed” does not mean one has heard of integral theory or read several articles. (Just as an example, refering to the elements of integral theory as a “decomposition of human development” is outright ridiculous. Arguing for a relational vs. hierarchical model is quite beside the point. Claiming integral theory discards “psychic development” IS delusional. ) There are too many instances, and it's of inferior relevance to my main point. As he said himself, “As far as integral theory itself goes, I was largely disappointed with it.” No wonder.
My point: I cannot symphatize with anything Pavlina said in this interview, because he appears incapable of admitting the accuracy of many objections raised (by Julian and Stuart, among others). While many arguments may be left aside for additional inspection, several main arguments can only be recognized as valid and therefore require some sort of acknowledgement and correction of his recent statements, views etc. Keeping firm to one's own views does not make them real, right or true (so much of “subjective” reality). Pavlina's argument that many among “integral enthusiasts” (!) are investing a great deal of energy into being right or proving themselves right or whatever is silly and profoundly flawed: anyone passionate about thought and philosophy is deeply into finding the truth (actually at least two truths), and they better be. Such people, however, readily and happily admit their mistakes. There's nothing Pavlina finds himself incapable of commenting, even when it's quite clear he has no serious competence or even knowledge (e.g. meditation, shadow work , spiritual practice etc.). The degree of self-aggrandizement and psychic inflation sometimes becomes just a bit too much.
Finally, “taking sides” may sound ugly to some, but not taking the side of meaning (not words) and purpose (not goals) and values (not “value”) often has unwanted consequences. After interviewing Pavlina, ~C4 may need to redefine what “consciously” aware in the description of B-SCAN stands for. To endorse Pavlina is to participate in serious confusion. Just my two cents.
Hokai
i just wanna say i loved this dialog on all sides.
thanks to c4 and steve for being willing to put it out there and thanks to everyone here for being so thoughtful, honest and clear……
gotta love it!
While I have attempted to honor some parts of what Pavlina is doing, some things, like the naive belief “creating your own reality”, do deserve some mocking.
If I created reality, this is what would be happening:
1. I'd have won at least two lotteries
2. I would be a linux expert/programming expert.
3. I would have started Zaadz - myself!
4. I would have the abs of Brad Pitt.
5. I'd live next to the Playboy mansion - and be invited to all the best parties.
6. George Bush woudl be a failed baseball commissioner, already forced to give up the job.
7. I would be on the Dalai Lama's top ten speed dial, and he would bunk at my place, when he was in town.
8. Not to mention, I'd be running an Integral Community Center.
9. I would be an excellent guitar player - I'd play once a week at my club, and Eddie, John McLaughlin, Jimmy, Stevie Ray, they'd all stop by occasionally to shoot the sh*t, compare notes.
10. I'd have visitied 200 countries.
11. Did I mention living next to the Playboy mansion?
(Okay, okay, that's 11. Some items are worth mentioning twice.)
Um, I can’t resist adding these comments–please, please forgive me.
First, thank you C4, because I didn’t know the system of thought included subpersonalities with their own lines of development, etc. Soooooo complex. That’s why I really don’t know how I can participate more in this conversation about “integral views” as a whole…
Oh-and another comment before I write the utterly awful one. This comment is nice–ebuddha is right, and we should put that question up as a “Reflection Question” for us all: “If you created this reality, what would be happening?”
Now, related to that, here’s the Stinker observation for which I might get some eye rolling, but I’ll just say it anyway, ‘cause this is Zaadz and you’ll probably forgive me: Is this, like, a “guy” conversation? What I am perceiving here is a kind of “cadillac model” of the ancient guy ritual of friendly debate. There’s a subtle kind of vibe that is just soooo male. Nuthin’ wrong with that, but just please see if you notice it too, if it’s pointed out. And if I’d created the world, we’d all understand how our communication dynamics worked, and I’d find a way to think about the subject the way you guys do and jump in. But some comlexity of it holds me back. And I’ve read Integral Psychology, some parts of it numerous times, and written about it, and also listened to the 5-CD series all the way through twice. But I connect with not much here. I honestly think it’s gender in action. And that’s NOT BAD!!! Please understand that this is not the voice of discontent. This is the voice of a woman who has studied communication for years–a voice of wonder.
Seems I'm late to the game here! Will anyone read this?! That's what I get for having a life.8)
I find this whole dialog actually quite amusing at this point. I think there are some serious and important points being made, though. I just don't have time to get into the nitty gritty details…
Martha,
Regarding the “cadillac model” of masculine debate: No, you're not the only one. This is part of what I've been criticizing. The hyper-agentic, toe-to-toe, no-room-for-niceties type of dialog is common among this bunch! (Love you all!) It's the basis of the Right Speech argument I was making, in that the agentic voice can be off-putting to LOTS of people, especially when it starts to verge on (or blatantly resonate with) arrogance. Of course, as we've seen, there are many who DO resonate with that approach; it's a timeless male-oriented performance mode, after all! More power to them! It just leaves off a whole bunch of people (those that resonate with communion-communication, whether male or female). I tend to try to use an approach that is a balance of agency and communion, in an attempt to speak to the widest number of people. Perhaps those agentic types don't give a rat's ass about reaching out to the communion types; don't know.
Glad to see you sticking with it, though, even though it doesn't resonate with you.
Julian, I'll happily take the Right Speech police badge if you own either the New Age police or Arrogant Asshole badge. Again, my point about Right Speech is not PC; it is about trying to communicate in a way that respects and values both agency and communion. I've seen loads of people at this point balk at the overly-agentic voice, and also the defense of that practice. THAT's what I find interesting. Noticing, noticing…
@ebuddha: “11. Did I mention living next to the Playboy mansion?”
you're being too less imaginative. if i create my own reality, i'd be Hugh Hefner at his prime :)
@martha: “First, thank you C4, because I didn’t know the system of thought included subpersonalities with their own lines of development, etc. Soooooo complex. That’s why I really don’t know how I can participate more in this conversation about “integral views” as a whole…”
well, you're not the only one. here's what the Spiral Dynamics camp (under Cowan) says about Wilber and integral this and integral that who's afraid of the New Age cat :)
“While we respect some of Wilber's philosophizing, running down intellectualized rabbit trails distracts from building the work that actually interests us. Since our experience adjacent to his world has been rather negative, we prefer to disengage from things Wilberian and leave him and his acolytes to do their own thing.”
“we should put that question up as a “Reflection Question” for us all: “If you created this reality, what would be happening?”
good question. please suggest that here.
@Colin: “Again, my point about Right Speech is not PC; it is about trying to communicate in a way that respects and values both agency and communion.”
exactly! ;)
Feminine modes of communication seem to be at a disadvantage on any internet forum. The limitations of the medium mean that we don't benefit from eye contact, body language and facial expression, tone of voice, we can't experience relation through touch, etc. The immediacy of face-to-face contact seems absolutely vital for feminine modes of communication, but we are here, staring at words on computer screens that were written hours of days ago half way across the world, by someone we'll probably never meet. Much is lost and left out.
But I think that what is being suggested here is that we need to grow beyond New Age perspectives, and the voice challenging you to grow and pushing you forward is the masculine one. Its possible to overdo it, of course, and I welcome the communal perspective on this important topic.
This was a really useful and interesting section of the interview, so thanks muchly to both of you! The more intelliegent, and well-intentioned critiques (positive and negative) of Integral/AQAL theory we get, the more it can evolve into an even better theory, just like any scientific theory evolves with peer review and continued research.
I agree with Steve, that I-I still functions with a lot of fear (shadow) and could use some lightening up (pun intended!). I'm always surprised at the reactions of the I-I higher-ups when they miss an opportunity to teach about the Buddhist idea of suffering being caused by attachment. Steve took the opportunity that the media frenzy created about the deaths at VA Tech to offer his readers a more integral/big picture view of death and reality, and how to cope with it all in a way that makes the world a better place. I-I's response was mostly to complain about what they assumed would be the stereotypical responses of politicians.
As for Steve's commnets about the difficulty of applying the Levels map, I think one of the main ideas that I-I would do well to heavily emphasize in their educational material is that each stage in the developmental spiral includes the other stages. This means, for example, that anyone currently moving through the Turquoise stage will also act and think a bit like Infrared, Magenta, Red, Amber, Orange, Green, and Teal too. So labeling someone, including oneself, as any one stage is somewhat deceptive. Yes, we will be centered in one stage at any given time in our development, but to be truly healthy, we will need to be in touch with all the previous stages as well. In my experience, the best way to get a feel for what stage people are centered in is to ask them what their main priorities are in life. Intent is a more accurate measurement of interior development than action is (which would be more indicative of exterior development).
Finally, I think Steve's onto something when he wonders about the usefulness of the AQAL map. What good is it really? I-I doesn't have much of an answer, as far as I've seen. Though I believe that it is indeed extremely useful! I think the main usefulness comes in helping people develop healthfully. The map can be a guide for tailoring resources to better meet people's needs so that people grow well, rather than in a stunted and malformed way, physically, intellectually, and emotionally. We may naturally move through the stages of development on our own, but we don't always get the most accurate and appropriate resources as we do so - which can lead to being at a highly developed stage, but with really terrible skills, like someone who's studied a foreign language for decades with a teacher who has a lisp :-) For example, if someone we want to help indicates that they are primarily interested in asserting themselves and using their authority to lead others (Red) then we can offer them some simple and effective leadership skills and let them try leading a team in a safe enviroment where they have permission to fail and encouragement to learn from their mistakes. This gives them a way to contribute to society in a beneficial way, and puts their values and goals to good use. While someone who expresses a desire to figure out who they are and how they can best fit in to society (Amber) could be offered the time and space and education to explore themselves and develop their personal talents to their satisfaction in any and all areas of physical, intellctual, and emotional development.
In other words, the AQAL map is a way to meet people where they are at!