"He spoke in a manner designed to be judicious but only achieved the patronizing." - George Hitchcock

He was my favorite teacher at UCSC, but I was in the French lit. dept. After 25 years, I'm back in school and surprised to see quite a few my age. I'm at Humboldt State in Arcata, Ca.

Wednesday, I went to my first English graduate class, Fundamentals of Research. It's required.

When the professor put a list of methodologies on the board - structuralism to multi-culturalism - field studies - to today, I saw no integral theory. I was more than surprised - I was shocked - my expressions always give me away, so I asked, "what about integral theory"?

No one, who spoke up (I could feel the blank - like a brick) has even heard of it, including at least one young, former philosophy major. So, while I tried to give a brief description - one essentially stolen out of WIE magazine - I suddenly CONTRACTED. "Oh fuck! I hope I'm not sounding 'Integral'"

For me, "Integral" represents the most recent culmination of all my personal struggles with the I-I et al. I've been reading Integral Naked for at least three years or more, but I feel I can never post because I'm never even partially sure about your language. It seems to me you prefer shades of purple but after three years, I still haven't grasped the correlates. Today, I'm asking myself if you even consider the correlates.

Does anyone else experience these type of contractions? Do you ask yourself how you sound to others. Do you wonder if you're becoming too comfortable in your own "community"?

I have a feeling we're (my new class and I) going to be addressing some integral issues in the next few months. I admit I feel emotional about this and I don't want to get bogged down in boomeritis, colors, three page, angry, fucking footnotes about why Spiral Dynamics is short or if Beck, Cohen, Murphy are "VOID" - can't talk to them - because they got paid for promoting what appears to be a MONISM. You are aware, aren't you, that there are people trying to reach you? And, it's hard sometimes - it's like arguing with psychics.... uh....er...okay... fucking... you say you're purple and fabulous and evolved ..... and I'm only a fish who can see in my own waters of development... don't throw me in the frying pan but if I can't trust me - why the hell would I be able to trust you (you're a fish too, remember? How do you expect me to appreciate your waters unless you invite -however you can manage - short of kidnapping - into your pond).

Questions:  1.  Does anyone else feel these "petite contractions?"  2. How are you (without being, showing, LIVING integral) appearing to be integral for the average bloke? Just tell me - the words (no colors) (Expand - I'm imaginative and tactile too) - What do you say? Why do you say what you say? (For the record, I've read Road Rules of Transformation and this is the best I can muster right now. Sorry)

-Karen

Okay, that wasn't me. I don't know who that was and I don't even know where it came from. It was absurd too - to ask you to talk to me while bitching about your language.

Will you permit a reword?

I'm not 100%, but I suspect I'm deep in Boomeritis ville. Arcata is a nice town.

What you might call the integral vision is important to me because I think it's essential so that we can cope with our evolution as a species, which will be the ability to see Waldo AND the picture too. But it could be a little scary for many (it might smell a little like schizophrenia at first) and you know what we do when we're afraid. The pre trans fallacy can be useful when we're not sure in which direction we are going. Are we transcending or are we regressing? The pre trans fallacy needs to be taught without pissing off the eco femnists. You're going to be talking to people who may have this underlying malaise - what's that word like anarchy only a zillion times more scary? Anomie, I think.

I hear that pluralism didn't work. Notice I said DIDN'T work. I'm not hearing that pluralism ISN'T working and that concerns me.

 The hardest part will be the fuzzy - we don't like anything fuzzy, right? Maybe we've become too good at language.

Can anyone out there see what I'm trying to say?

-K

 

Hi Karen,

 

You are not alone, so rest easy in this assurance: you have lots of company when it comes to learning the art of speaking of ‘things integral’, especially to the uninitiated. For starters it’s, of course, wise to avoid jargon and keep it simple.

 

Often the ‘I get to use every thing - even my faults- approach’, works for openers. And maybe a bit of humor, too, as in, “No one is smart enough to be 100% wrong!”

 

This approach opens the door to interiors, right away, i.e. it’s not just a surface matter of mere words, but the intent, the state of being, and the sincerity of the speaker that operates as a sort of carrier wave for meaning; roughly akin to a radio signal which is made up of such a wave, and where the message is held in the way the wave is modulated. (FM signals Modulate Frequency; AM signals Modulate Amplitude.)

 

I see no profit in making war with one’s self; but as long as we maintain a gap in our psyche, roughly between the ways we perceive ourselves and the way we think we should be, the temptation to do so is ever present.

 

Yikes, is there a simpler expression of this truth than that of the cartoon character Popeye, when he says, “I am what I am!”

 

Warmly,

 

Charles (in jargon free mode)

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

 

           

 

      

mcfarlin:

 It was absurd too - to ask you to talk to me while bitching about your language.

That is funny. Is a good laugh "fuzzy" enough? Or . .wait, what do you mean by "fuzzy!?" Do you mean "fuzzy" like a kitten, teddy bear or dog or "fuzzy" as in "I don't quite see this?"  (I was trying to be funny but now I'm serious . . . I don't understand your language!) Now you're going to kill me! I didn't mean it! (Ah, there it is again!!!!)

Okay. Breath. Pause.

I seriously did not intend that, but it's just more of the difficulties of language. I read your post yesterday and felt I could both see Karen and see the world Karen was in, but I was, well, not sure how to respond.

Charles in correct. This is really, really new territory that we are trying to both wade through and forge here, and the language is one of the greatest difficulties. It keeps evolving too -trying to get at the more and more specific and easy to understand referents. (And then the referents need to be seen and understood as well.)

And there are a lot of continued efforts to makes this overall system simpler and simpler and simpler and more and more accessible. KW's original introduction to AQAL was 800 pages. Then that was simplified to 350 then to 200, and there are even more simpler and simpler introductions.

But, in order to integrate what is essentially a vastly complex world, and all that is within it, it's going to take both time and a lot of work on all our parts. Especially to enter into that same thought, language and worldspace.

So, that said, I for one would be more than happy to answer any specific questions you might have. No promises at perfection, but open offer none the less.

One last thing. Truthfully, we all have some degree of a case of Boomeritis. And that doesn't just mean here but everywhere in the western world (at least). So, again, as Charles said, welcome to the club of beginning to see it. And I think it's a good club.

Peace, Tim

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

To answer your second question of how I appear to the average bloke...

My friends have confided to me that people have asked them if I am gay, if I have any commitments, if I side on anything, if I am neutral on everything, If they should be afraid of me, etc...

I simply don't make sense to a lot of people.  It's the changing gears that throws them off.  I'm never completely Blue or Orange or Green, etc...  I seem to waffle.  Add to that the way I answer questions like I'm answering a paradoxical koan, and....  you get the message.

The way out of Boomeritis for me was the heartfelt discovery of Big Heart.  Sally Kempton has some terriffic exercises dealing with feeling your interior.  Give equal importance to the interior as the exterior and try to stay balanced.  I really don't know what the benefit is in getting out of Boomeritis, except that I'm trying to find the answers inside myself instead of inside others.

---

myspace.com/zentaimusic

Truth is - I'm an "ist." What's your language for that term?

Yes, Sally Kempton has been very helpful. It had never occurred to me that we can actually drop down into our hearts and feel it too. You know who's truly the cat's pajamas, as my grandpa used to say? Frances Vaughan - Awakening Intuition, Shadows of the Sacred, the Inward Arc - I'm reading the latter now.

One of the problems is that deep down I AM an "ist," which would put my center of gravity at mythic - I just can't find an "ism." Also, I wonder if deep down most people aren't "ists" too. If some of you weren't "ists" would I be seeing the Ken Wilber cult or am I seeing a Wilber cult because I can not NOT see with my own eyes?

I know this sounds puerile but: In steering someone toward Integral Naked, she's going to see a woman from JFK Univ. give an excellent discussion on "drawing color" - people of color that is - and a subsequent mediocre rating and the silence. Ken Wilber coughs, a subsequent rating of 5 and a 6 month discussion about .... well ... I'm still not sure ... but I know that just mixing components together or evoking chaos doesn't equate to integral.

In steering someone toward Wilber as in "read such and such book or the pre-trans fallacy means this because he defines it on such and such page." I'm afraid she's going to see what I see when he rants - a man asking people to see his vision while complaining about their eyesight.

But at mythic I still might qualify to teach the mythic-literal only Wilber said they hate me. I suspect, at Humboldt, magic will only show up as a pre-trans fallacy and the troglodytes .... well ...obvious language barrier.

I see that I'm not seeing you at Humboldt and my first response is something like, "What's wrong with those guys"? My second response is a la would I do more damage than good if I put forth an effort - communication is not my strength, in fact, it's my weakness. But I know I have the tools - hey, I scored in the 96th percentile on the GRE verbal section (I assume graduate schools require these exams for some intelligent reason) so it's like having the tools but the instructions are in farci.

-K

Hi Karen,

 

I have sympathy with your situation. But, it’s easy to get off track, and be sidelined with ancillary issues. It’s is not so much a question of language as the sincerity (and depth) of the speaker. Example, you are in class, a range of developmental options are put forth, which stop short of integral. If you feel need to respond, how about an approach that is sincere, honest, and open, i.e., “I have heard of another option, it includes all of these options, and yet claims to go beyond them. It is called integral. Are you aware of this approach?”

 

Now about being an ist and isms. Here is how it appears from my view; my postulate is that essential truth is not like a virus, where one enlightened being, one Mahavir, one Buddha, one whomever, appears on the Earth and others just ‘catch it’ like the flu. This essential truth cannot be borrowed. To try to do so is a sort of fakery, a grasping at some shadow, or a basking in some reflected light. This approach misses, and worse pisses away our birthright. Much better to claim and stand in as much of the truth as has been revealed to us, given our current development. By this standard when an individual misses it is called an ‘ist’; when a collectivity misses it is called an ‘ism’.

 

It’s entirely possible to state all this in Wilber-like terms; but i have opted not to do so, just to demonstrate that it is possible. And as we come to realize our own ‘truth’ the words will surely follow; sometimes it even manifests as frustration; the wise ones see this as opportunity and work with what they are given.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

Charles, you're funny. I love that.

And, I agree with you: Sense of humor is crucial. And, I want to agree with all your frequencies but I don't have any foil in the cupboard and.... well.... one never knows when talking to "psychics."  But:

It’s is not so much a question of language as the sincerity (and depth) of the speaker.

I wish I could believe this but I know there's been many sincere and deep speakers, past and present, who just aren't heard. Language is crucial. But, it's only a matter of time and convenience. Eventually sincere and deep will permeate but for me language is just quicker and easier too.

This essential truth cannot be borrowed

True.  While I can't profess to know the essential truth, I suspect there are certain "vrai semblances" that can be dispersed to the masses but I'd like to make an effort to maintain a certain continuity even though you guys aren't always on your best behavior. In other words, I don't want to go Integral Lite. I would rather refer someone to Integral Naked and/or Ken Wilber and hope that they have their pants on.

To try to do so is a sort of fakery, a grasping at some shadow, or a basking in some reflected light.

Probably, but I also have to ask myself what attracted me to the Integral Institute in the first place. I walked in without having read Ken Wilber or any of the transpersonal psychologists and I may have been grasping at some shadow or basking in some reflected light. In my head I wanted to know if the ITP/ILP's weren't some continuance of what Foucault was talking about in the early 80's the "soigne de soi-meme" - cultivation of the self - a practice he said had been discontinued or maybe integrated into psychology, education, etc. But, I've been very conscious of all my struggles with the integral concept and the I-I by extension, because it's important to me and I don't want to "make the same mistakes" so to speak. If I were to just "stand in the truth in as much as it is revealed" it would be okay too but it's a more lazy approach.

How is it looking so far? I never knew Foucault was a deconstructionist. When I told my professor I was surprised, he said, "Karen, it's okay. We're pluralistic now. It's no longer about right and wrong." (I wondered if he smelled my "ist" tendencies.) Also, when he asked us to team up and give the different post structuralist literary theories, no one yet is considering their limitations. My nature now is to consider the pros and the cons as far as a more holistic perspective. Basically, I left college when Derrida's epigone were revamping the french department - missed 20 years - I'm landing with an integral perspective, which isn't here yet. I wonder how my vision is clouded having to see these perspectives in hindsight.

Listen, I appreciate talking you. Thank you. I've never posted before.

-K

 

 

It’s is not so much a question of language as the sincerity (and depth) of the speaker

Actually Charles, listen to Willow and how do you feel?

I'm willing to bet that my ILP wasn't like yours for a number of reasons, but at my ILP I heard what I considered to be quite of bit of criticism of Willow. And, I couldn't see it so began asking people and stripping it down, and it was her voice (soft, powdery, cloying) and her language (perceived as insincere, affected, condescending). Willow is sincere and I don't have a sonar device or anything, but I suspect she's deep too.

I kind of attribute it to an intolerance of theatre and pedagogy but they go hand in hand.

-K

 

Hi Karen,

 

At your suggestion i listened again to Willow’s video clip, noting closely what i felt, even though feelings are seldom reliable guides to action. Mostly what i felt was empathy and a bit of wonder. Was her hesitancy to be more assertive coming from deference to others or some nagging self-doubt?

 

But on more positive note she seemed to be lining up with her fate in the sense of living her name (a game i sometimes play at). Willow is a favorite tree; with it’s graceful bending in the wind, and at home in low lying places, happily draining dampness (a rough equivalent to the negative feelings that are the field of the psychotherapist); but most of all i admire the willow in its role of harbinger of newness, renewal, and  Spring. Working out of doors year round at 42 degrees north latitude taught me well that it is the willow that first dares to leaf at winter’s end.

 

And finally nothing pleases me more than to see/experience someone living their realization; and most sad is when that possibility is missed.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

 

P.s It takes some courage to emerge from lurk mode and into posting; but is not courage a necessary part of Essential Spirituality?

Hi Again:

You know it's not so bad ... just describing the integral framework as I see it. Probably, I'm just anxious - the atmosphere (graduate school) is intimidating to me after so many years. I'm making a concerted effort to be moderate and not come across as preachy or TOO EXCITED. I can feel it too - that some students are looking for a better model - they can see that there are missing pieces in each theory - reader response, new historicism, etc.

 And, it's been three weeks and I haven't been pinned down and made to scream UNCLE or anything because I can't quote Ken Wilber.

But, back to Willow. Because she's the ILP "look at Waldo and the big picture simultaneously" person. She never said that exactly but that's what she was asking me to do when she saw me struggling at the ILP. At least that's how I translated it. And, this is hard because everything is a little fuzzy at first and you have to learn to trust your feelings (I navigate like that - I know you don't) and your intuition. How to tell if it's intuition or some Candace Pert groove has been quite a struggle. That's why I'm grateful to have found Frances Vaughan. But, I'm still working on body awareness.

So, it's interesting that you saw Willow as deferential or insecure. Some of the ILP students saw her as insincere. I don't see her as either.

Take care, Charles.

-K

Willow is a favorite tree

Yes, I spent 20 years at the 41st No Lat. or at the foot of Mount Shasta, and I had two willows around my pond - one was wild and one was a corkscrew - every spring the tips would turn black and I cut them off meticulously and put old crystalized honey on the tips. They flourished, of course, but the truth is - willows are prone to bores - those bugs that get inside the branches themselves - the whole pruning ritual was an early spring rite for me.

-K