Holons: The World of Wilbergral Poseurs
Zoolander: Well I guess it all started the first time I went through the second grade. I caught my reflection in a spoon while I was eating my cereal, and I remember thinking "wow, you're ridiculously good looking, maybe you could do that for a career."
Matilda: Do what for a career?
Zoolander: Be professionally good looking.
Delivered to my inbox yesterday was the sixth issue of Holons: News from the Integral World, a one-page newsletter presented by Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute. It is ridiculous in ways that I don’t think Wilberians can appreciate, since they are, hyper-ironically, adverse to self reflection. [As evinced by The Ken’s doubleback spin-around suck-my-dick blog post of a year ago, "What we are, that we see.," a test The Ken created, gave himself | From Wikipedia: In June 2006 Wilber wrote a controversial series of blog posts in which he used profanity, attacked critics, compared himself humourously to Wyatt Earp, and said that those offended by his postings were in the "lower tier" levels in the development of consciousness. His actions in this regard have been variously condemned as cultic, misleading, puerile, and not in the spirit of mature academic dialogue. …. Wilber's supporters have been more positive, responding, for example, that this type of discourse is appropriate for the blog medium. |
Immediately below the title banner, the newsletter says this in explanation of itself: “Holons is the free I-I newsletter, featuring news about Integral and from an Integral point of view.” Okie-dokie, thinks I. This’ll all be tippy-top concentrated mature rootin-tootin spiritual mojo. Hold on to your hat. But, ay, the newsletter disappoints.
One section is called “Around the Blogosphere from an Integral P.O.V.” I get it, I get it, I’m thinking. From an Integral point of view. What I am about to read is from an Integral point of view. But then there’s this disclaimer: “These posts may or may not meet AQAL standards, and we don’t necessarily endorse their views, but they do give a sense of the rich conversations occurring among integrally-informed bloggers.” So, I have to wonder: Why didn’t they just call the section “Around the Blogosphere from Integrally-Informed Bloggers Whom We Can’t Endorse”? And since the newsletter from its very top tells us it is all about “Integral and from an Integral point of view,” why didn’t they just ditch this section entirely?
And they should have ditched the section entirely. While the eight blog posts that are excerpted are from some of my favorite Integral bloggers, the posts that were selected are not particularly noteworthy. And, since the claim is that these were conversation-sparking posts, there should have been long comment threads that came with each post, or lots of linkbacks, but this was not the case.
The top item in the newsletter begins with this paragraph …
As the 2008 U.S. presidential race begins to take off; and as the war in Iraq continues to churn out death and suffering on a massive scale (even threatening to expand into Iran); and as dozens of other issues—global warming, immigration, the culture wars, etc.—vie for our attention and concern, the need could not be greater for an Integral approach to politics.
It's an interesting beginning, but it is all only a lead-in to what becomes a pitch to sell readers Integral Institute memberships of various access combinations that range in price from $10 to a wallet-radioactive $500/month.
One would think that Integral folks would be adverse to being weaselly in their approach to selling product. And that their prices would be consistantly modest. Instead, things seem to be geared for snagging new followers that are that tangy combo of being rich and vulnerable. Sure, there are plenty of $10 bleacher seats for the desired crowd of twentysomethings. But if you're starry-eyed with more money than you can spend and don't have much to do, then you can buy your way to a short conversation with The Ken and a handshake. It's not what Jesus would do during His second coming, but it is Ken's way of being a 21st Century guru with designs well short of being angelic.
One article is a review of Barack Obama, using his book Audacity of Hope as touchstone. The writer says, “Obama seems headed toward an integrative vision. His peculiar gift is an ability to take multiple perspectives and weave them together into a coherent and compelling whole.” Hooray, that. But if you click to read the full article at Zoosphere.com, the reviewer reveals his misgivings: “…there are some ways that Obama is not integral”, followed by a list with four elements – “He doesn’t explicitly use an integral framework”, “He doesn’t acknowledge levels or waves of development”, “He doesn’t recognize the role of states and stages of consciousness”, “He doesn’t include mysticism or radical emptiness.”
In other words, Obama doesn’t genuflect to The Cult. In other words, he doesn’t Wilberspeak. In other words, he is being real instead of being an I-I poseur. In other words, he doesn’t drive a bulldozer through his presidential ambitions in order to get I-I cred. Another factor may be that the I-I gang doesn’t want to queer things with the Clintons, Bill having sang praises for Integral Psychology during an important speech in Europe a year or so ago.
The Obama review comes beginning with this disclaimer where it appears in Holons: News about Integral and from an Integral point of view: “…this essay does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Ken Wilber or Integral Institute.”
Another feature in Holons shows cultural events ranked in the Wilberian rainbow-hued color scheme, from Integral [(1)Indigo, (2)Turquoise, (3)Teal] to the dank depths of the ugly-colored bottom tier of spiritual zest. The highest rated cultural event is The Stuart Davis Show. Stuart Davis is famously Ken Wilber’s mini-me, whose actions are the definition of Integral. Davis could put on blackface, drop to one knee and sing “Mammy” and THAT would suddenly be deemed Integral by I-I, wholly from the act of him having just done it.
What gets rated highly is the action of acting, not being. If you’re Integral and you’re not aware of being Wilbergral, you’re not Integral. Catch 22. Only by being artificial are you real.
Lastly, there’s a gray box in the middle of the newsletter that reads thus: “Because Holons draws on a variety of sources, it does not necessarily represent the views of Ken Wilber or I-I. To learn more about I-I, [yada, yada, membership pitch]”
Hilarious, in a I-just-killed-the-cat-when-I-dropped-the-carving-knife kind of way. Holons is news from I-I “about Integral and in an Integral point of view” that I-I fully disavows.
11 comments:
Interesting read.
Seems to be alot of self referential
"integral" writings deciding what and who is
what color in the I-I world. I am quite new
to all of this integral stuff but to my eyes
it seems to be so strangly focused on on
anaylisis.
At this point I am unsure what
being integral means beyond writing about
being integral. It's starting to sounds alot like
the productivity blogs who seem to be mostly
productive with writing about being productive.
Is this integral stuff just a self-referencing feedback loop?
Hi Tom, I don't like to admit it, but I think you have some good points here... my sense also is that there is a lot of posing in the integral world, a lot of macho and hip images being polished, a lot of arrogance, a lot of rewarding of those who play the game... and a lot of turning the blind eye to this, and rewards for not questioning it or bringing it up...
I think you bring up some legitmate points, even salient points, however from my experience of I-I folks is that they are self reflexive, and certainly don't always agree with Ken. I was troubled by the Wyatt Earpy thing. And my first reaction was "Ken would you please shut up." When I send a stupid email it's just a stupid email, when Ken does it, it will reverberate for years. The disclaimer actually seems to be evidence that there is a disagreement in the I-I world as the organization grows and differientiates.
I don't think I-I is a cult, although some people in any organization will go there in the presence of a brilliant charasmatic leader. That's a hell of a serious charge. I was in a cult as teen. Bummer. Anyway we are all too human. I suppose that the nastiness of the Earpy rant brought a lot of this invective on Ken's head. I would suggest that we pay attention to our own inner development and try and see Ken's enourmous contribution from a larger perspective. An old Native American medicine questions asks the question "will it grow corn?" I think it will and does. Certainly it has for me in my life. And in the blogosphere if Ken wants to play nasty, you can play nasty back. But somehow it seems all beside the main point. But what the hell let the games continue! And I think your point that people can be Integral without speaking AQAL is very true, but AQAL folks will apply that lens... and so it goes.
1st Anon: I think there is a lot of interest in Integral Psychology if you can get outside the feedback loop. While it is understandable that there are scholars picking over the minutia [I don't mean that in a derogatory way, really], it has become competitive and narcissistic and an absurd soap opera [thus, absurdly ironic] in a hub that stretches out across the Internet, centered in Wilber's Loft.
Per: Thanks. I greatly appreciate you offering your view on this. Yes, there is a lot of posing.
Anon 2: As for the cult thing, I think that at this point Ken qualifies to be labeled a guru who has fanatical followers. And certainly Ken is someone who doesn't allow people to disagree with him. . [He fired Frazee and other staff members not too long ago.] Ken is somewhere in the spectrum between Jesus and Koresh and his associates are required to be obsequious. To my mind, it quacks like a cult.
Will it grow corn? All the corn that was there may already have been harvested.
A very funny rip of Ken Wilber and his mini-me..... I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.....
Thanks.
David Lane
Just from the Alex Grey art and the graphics used on the web pages for Integral Naked and Integral Institute---
I get a very strange vibe.
The artwork seems either to glitter, whether its the icy grey
science fiction motif of the II and IN webpages or the nude labelled as Stuart Davis.
The nudes seem cold and slick and most of the time they are male nudes--hairless, like cold fish or specimens laid out on anatomy lab tables.
No warm furry 'bear' men are depicted. And..where are women?
Or the Alex Grey art is at the other extreme where there is energy and color, but it glitters with a spooky unnerving intensity.
Its all fire and ice.
Someone should ponder the artwork favored by the II elite--it may give clues. For the art we select is a waking dream and mirrors the hidden emotional landscape.
Even when human bodies are represented in visionary grids networking with the cosmos, it seems more like a science class lesson, rather than something drawn from the artists experience
of being embedded in a vast world
where beings have warmth, fur, feathers, fat and fart after a good meal--
and are not just perfect hairless specimens.
I dont trust KW because he treats people as collectable, classifible specimens.
Hence his love affair with ever more elaborate taxonomies.
Naming and classifying is an act of power, no different from those who reassure themselves with Rapture scenarios in which they, along with the worthy, will go to heaven and the rest of us will be Left Behind in hell--or the Green Meme swamp.
Hi Tom, first time here. Amusingly insightful post. It seems that the "manifestation phase" of Wilber's work (which I suppose would equate with "Wilber-V") has turned a lot of people off, including myself. My own gradual disenchantment with Wilber World is, I think, two-fold: 1) Natural maturation and development that has led me from seeing Wilber as being first among a few integral voices to being one among many integral voices and 2) the above mentioned distaste of Integral Institute's public face, which is at least partially aesthetic.
But again, I think Wilber's work and voice is very important; but I agree with your view on the cultic tendencies of I-I and the tendency to judge everything through an AQAL lens (if you're not AQAL, you're not integral).
p.s. I find the Stuart Davis Show to be hilarious--and he'd be the first to do a black-face gag (don't encourage him!).
Anon 3: What a brilliant comment! The art is cold and calculated and there is no explanation about why it would be integral. It seems it is integral solely because it is atuned to Wilber's aesthetic imposed on his 2nd Tier.
While some graphic art may be easily subject to having its altitude guaged, I would think that most graphic art, including Grey's, is outside all that. It's ART, dammit; it is there to evoke quizzical combos of subjective meaning.
jonny bardo! It is an honor. I very much agree with your post yesterday, "To Altitude or Not to Altitude" in Integral Musings, where, with your greater intelligence, expertise and insight, you make points that I flail at attempting to make, here, in my post.
If we are too aware of guaging, rating and ranking people and their behavior then we aren't 'in the moment.' Plus, if we are ourselves behaving in ways solely to meet imposed Integral goals, then we make caricatures of ourselves. And, I would argue, you can never be Integral if you are only acting Integral.
What might help the folks who edit Holons News, and I-I in general, would be to have more clearly defined, practical goals. Right now they seem to be flailing a bit (which might be why they like Mr. Davis so much!), throwing out whatever they can come up with, just to see what sticks.
As Wilber himself points out, he's the philosophy expert (interior), not the praticality expert (exterior), so it's not surprising that I-I has a difficult time organizing and producing things under his leadership. Sure, they think Integrally, but they haven't had much experience doing things Integrally. And without a lot of good role models, they are presumably having to make most of it up as they go along.
So yeah, I-I and Holons News can definitely use a hand at making their products and services more fully Integral. If you've got some good ideas, then maybe you could share them with them.
INTEGRATION, EVOLUTION AND I-I
All Charles Haanel quotes are from pages: 120-123 The Master Key Arcana
“The perfect ideal can only be that of being capable of reciprocating all the qualities of the Originating Mind. Consequently man, in his inmost nature, is the product of the Divine Mind imaging forth an image of itself on the plane of the relative as the complementary to its own sphere of the absolute. If we therefore go to the in most principle in ourselves…we shall find that we have reached a principle in ourselves which stands “in loco dei” towards all our vehicles and also towards our environment.”
True integration being The Natural State.
“The Spiritual World, as it appears at this moment is outside Natural Law. Theology continues to be considered, as it has always been, a thing apart. It remains still a stupendous and splendid construction, but on lines altogether its own.”
“As the highest of the sciences, Theology in the order of evolution should be the last to fall into rank. It is reserved for it to perfect the final harmony.”
Charles Haanel says scientific inquiry cannot relate to the unprecedented, Great Exception, portions of spiritual experience cut off by an insurmountable barrier from the domain of scientific inquiry. He says religion has yet to be brought within the sphere of Natural Law—Law is the revelation of time…The discovery of Law is simply the discovery of Science.
“And if the analogies of Natural Law can be extended to the Spiritual World, that whole region at once falls within the domain of science and secures a basis as well as an illumination in the constitution and course of Nature.”
“The forms of the Sciences had to be perfected before the form of the Spiritual. The inorganic has to be worked out before the organic—the Natural before the Spiritual.”
“If there is any foundation for theology, if the phenomena of the Spiritual World are real, in the nature of things they ought to come into the sphere of Law. Such is at once the demand of Science upon Religion and the prophecy that it shall be fulfilled.”
As an example of how Science and Spirituality will come increasingly together we can see that our current understanding of spiritual-energy of the body that is influenced by the East, is a mythic analogy of subjective interior gnosis of what is. However in about 50 years we will have a nature scientific model of the spiritual energy system, which will expand our skill, understanding and growth exponentially. Thus Theology will reach its maturity when all the sciences in their highest moral and intellectual forms are included intimately and nottwo with spiritual perception, sensibility and behavior.
As yet religion and science stand apart and each is made lesser because of it. As they grow together however, each will mature the other into a singular grokking of the true nature of Reality and Being. Only at this point can we say a genuinely “rational and spiritual” human exists…that is an integral being.
To the extent that I-I uses past forms of religious manipulation and extortion, it is harming this grand synthesis. To the extent that I-I embraces a rational and transrational theology and the spiritualization of the sciences…it is to this extent that I-I will contribute to a lasting renaissance of the higher human…ie: promote evolution.
Post a Comment