Since Blogger (and Facebook, for that matter) took it upon itself to change my blog template without my consent, it seems like the perfect sign from the Kosmos to redefine my mission here.
I am not 2nd tier, nor am I integral.
That's it. That is my new manifesto.
So maybe now Joe Perez can find something better to do with his time than to continually write negative things about me and this blog (see here, here, here, here - there's probably others, but I really don't care).
I'm done with the integral community, with integral people, with integral blogging, and so on.
Seriously, the number of people who have even heard of Ken Wilber and AQAL is embarrassingly small and that won't change for the better. Over the last 10-15 years I have watched the integral community become a parody of dysfunctional spiritual communities, which is likely what will always happen when stage chasing (and tier bigotry) becomes more important than the work. I don't need that kind of ass-backward elitism in my life.
If the world is currently at or near 7 billion people, there are about 6.9999 billion of them who could not possibly care any less about integral theory. Many of them need clean water, food, shelter, medicine, and mental health care.
You want to change the world? Go help those people live better lives.
24 comments:
Welcome to Turquoise!
(Kidding, kidding...)
Keep doing what you're doing. Barely a day goes by I'm not interested in the resources you share. I'd love to see that positive flow of good stuff continue.
Thank you for all the work you have done.
For being the only voice of clarity in the midst of extreme psychological disorder and group pathology.
Yes, the integral community has lost its integrity.
And doesn't seem to want to recover it.
I thank you so much for your honest and sincere efforts.
from the heart,
Fede
I left integral behind for reasons similar to yours... it just seemed like something promising world transformation that had turned into yet another insular, culty sect. No, not like Scientology (or Daism, or Jonestown, or the like), but more like Anthroposophy, or Theosophy, or Rosicrucianism... a harmless distraction for bored middle class pseudointellectuals. Dungeons and Dragons for adult geeks.
Welcome to the club of "post-integrals". Where now?
Wow, Bill! This is great and has taken my thinking around the so-called "integral community" to a new level (no pun intended). Even the label seems to be taking on a "look at how evolved I am" persona. Now I have to go do something important.
Over the years, Bill, I have pretty much disassociated myself from every single group/movement I considered myself a member of at one time or another. I had many reasons for doing so. One of the main reasons is that other group members assumed I was in the group for the exact same reasons they were and by extension believed I must then have the exact same approach to the group as they did. In other words, there is a lot of projection going in group memberships. I found that type projection resulted in my often feeling I couldn't authentically express myself within the context of the "group think."
I have also discovered I am far more of a leader than a follower. As such I really only do well in groups and movements I myself have initiated. Those group too often eventually get co-opted by people with philosophies I soon view as fanatical or crazy. And so I often even leave the groups I've started! Oh well. C'est la vie. Best wishes in the next level of independent thinkerdom. It can be lonely though very liberating indeed.
YAY! Bill
I was never integral, whatever that means, and was never really impressed by the scene. No one I know has ever heard of integral, although it seems they are more integral than those labeled as such. I didn't like the elitism and I like Nicholas' term 'post-integral.'
Maybe I have rubbed off on you.
Jami
Hi Bill,
I can really appreciate why you make this distinction, but I don't really buy it. I think you care about these ideas and about the people involved with them.
But I also think you are right - so much of what qualifies as "integral studies" in the semi-public view is really "integral self-help". For myself - integral theory become, not an end in itself - but the gateway to the real work I need to do. Integral theory still serves me very well as an orienting framework to the various claims that are involved in my counseling studies. I have yet to find much in my studies that is inconsistent with integral theory, though there are some topics that are under-appreciated.
Integral applications in self-help are a different matter. There are some interesting ideas there, but my opinion is that if one's entire approach to self-improvment, development, self-care, self-help is composed purely of I-I/I-Life endorsed practices, you're missing a lot and you are probably misconceiving a lot as well. The real application of Ken's work, imho, is not in these areas - its more in discerning just what different techniques might or might-not be accomplishing.
So I'm completely with you in spirit - you want to change the world, take the integral map, forget the seminars and workshops, roll up your sleeves, and get to work.
WIlliam, forgive me for asking this, but then why is your blog called "Integral-Options"? That first word would seem to indicate someone who views himself as, well, integral.
Hi Keith,
When I began this blog, in 2005, I was a HUGE fan of Wilber and all things integral - I had just "rediscovered" his books and spent about six years reading the material I had not seen after Up From Eden.
Thus the name of the blog.
For better or worse, IOC has a lot of name recognition, so I am not changing the name.
You have my support :) I was very interested in Ken Wilber and the integral approach before I found the integral community online, and then quickly got disenchanted. It's a shame, since there is much of value there. But at the same time, what's really important, what really supports me and others, is often quite simple.
MC JDub,
I am not ditching the map, just the nonsense that goes along with it, and any attempt to live up to (or blog up to) what others define as "integral."
There is so much that is useful in integral theory, and so many good people who use the model and are not part of the "scene." I do not want to lose that map and those friends.
But I do want to distance myself as much as possible for what passes as the integral movement and the egos involved with that.
Hey Sage,
I would really like to meet you for coffee before you move back to the Bay Area.
Word, my friend. :)
Thank you for all the work you have done.
- Алексей, Ukraine
I feel ya, Bill. Last year I made a similar declaration about my personal blog after being ripped for being "non-integral". But like you, I use the "I" word in the title of my more professional blog/website. I'm not sure that I will keep doing so much longer (Unlike IOC, my blog has zero name recognition at this point, so a name change would be no big deal). I use the word in its most general sense, more or less as shorthand for the awkward term "biopsychosocial". Perhaps this general usage was never really a good idea. But I also have a fondness for "Integral", going back to my days at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and then my subsequent discovery of Wilber's work. As a general descriptive term, I just like it better than "biopsychosocial", "holistic", "integrative", and the like.
Not sure what I'll do going forward, but the pretense of the whole "integral scene" is indeed a bit much to stomach these days...
Keep doin' what you're doin', by whatever name!
Hi Bill. I hate "tier-rany" too. I'm grateful for your work and for the ideas of others that you share on your blog. Keep on truckin. Bless you.
Mary W.
Hi Bill,
WONDERFUL! I will take the ball on that and contact you. We are not laving until late November. So "the return" is still a little way off :-)
Hi Bill,
In Switzerland a new political party, called Integral Politics, was born recently. It has many wondeful ideas and people working in it. Definitely something worth, although the endeavour, is quite idealistic and probably philosophicaly paradoxical. In conflicts, people often say,"this is non integral, you are not integral". Result? I left as quickly as I could. Wilber's production is theoretically very good. for the rest, concretisation of the ideas, it's been crap. Plain and simple. The world is full of amazing people and groups working with heart and head. We don't need the word integral. You'are an amazing blogger,constant, intelligent, productive and a source of information for many. I use this occasion to thank you heartily for your work. Hugs from Switzerland, Patrick Hertzschuch
Hi Bill,
I can understand, and it's a pity, really. I think you do have an influence on this movement through your blogs.
To put it in the terms of quadrants: II and it's sister companies simply haven't much developed in the lower two quadrants, and now they might... at least a bit. Obviously you, slamming the door, cannot or don't want to urge them on anymore. A loss, a grave loss for the Boulder type Integrals.
Which leads me to the thought, that you actually are 'integral' in the sense that you find integrity most important - so maybe we can claim the word back and say that you're not affiliated with the Wilber-cult anymore but are, in essence, truly integral.
Hugs,
Mushin
Patrick, I just have to say that was one of the most lovely posts I have seen in the comments section of a blog in a very long time. And I subscribe to many blogs. So thank you for posting that. Also, I agree with your assessment of Bill's wonderful contribution to the often vapid and superficial world of blogging!
Thank you for this. I retain my interest in the Integral community, but certainly have no intention to hitch myself to their bandwagon wherever they happen to go. I view Integral theory as true, but partial. I have, unfortunately, seen certain troubling views(like Michael Zimmerman's equivocation over global warming) branded as "Integral" simply by virtue of being uttered by members of the community. I think it's about time to transcend (and include) Integral.
Bill, I'm taken aback by your response here and on my blog. You ignored my request that you respond in any fashion to the detailed analysis of your stance and Marc Gafni's response with its subtle arguments about post-conventional power dynamics, etc., in favor of repeating yourself, leveling new and unsupported allegations against Gafni, and accusing your critics (or at least me, I'm not sure) of "tier bigotry." (You don't bother to explain your vaguely-defined barbs, preferring instead to lash out as if your tantrum were self-evidently true.)
Excuse me, how does calling me a bigot exactly help your case? Is "take your integral community and shove it" the best you can do? Or do you just regard yourself as above the norms of common civil discourse?
I can't help but think everything about your responses just confirms my original points about your lack of integral consciousness or disregard for any of the positive values espoused by anything vaguely integral. Calling yourself non-integral is a helpful clarification for your blog's readers, though I regret that you continue to title your blog deceptively.
You also self-righteously posture yourself as a savior of victimized women and truth-teller maligned by mean integralists while conveniently disclaiming the observation that your blogs implicitly define you as "hero" and Marc Gafni as "villain." Huh?
You conveniently turn the subject away from anything germane to my question and onto Marc's ethics. Do you not see the irony of your alleging that Marc is a plagiarist while refusing even once to respond publicly to my observations that you routinely ignore the law and Blogger's terms of service through egregious intellectual property theft? How many innocent writers and online publishers have YOU victimized by your casual violation of their copyrights over a span of several years?
It seems to me you've got some ethical issues of your own for which you've never been held accountable, yet you persist in throwing stones. I guess your saying "I am not integral" and "Leave me alone, you mean Joe Perez" is supposed to absolve you of your ethical responsibilities. I'm not sure, but I'm through with this discussion.
Joe,
If you think Gafni's response contained "subtle arguments about post-conventional power dynamics" rather than ego-driven rationalizations of his unethical behaviors using integral terminology to give the appearance of higher-level thinking, well, there is not much I can do about your reading comprehension.
More to the point, you seem willingly convinced by Gafni that this is just about sex and relationships - while missing the whole point about trust, responsibility, and ethics. He tries to make it about sex every time, while it has always been about power, control, and manipulation. But don't trust me, ask John Dupuy and the others who once supported him and have been burned by that support.
But on the rest of your comment:
Stage and/or tier bigotry is believing you have the right to determine whether or not someone is at a given stage or tier of development and then using said unfounded assessment as grounds to dismiss another person and/or her/his work.
I believe you assess, even in your comment above (as well as in your various "assessments" of me and my blog), my "lack of integral consciousness or disregard for any of the positive values espoused by anything vaguely integral." So, who appointed you arbiter of integral?
While you may not like the post I wrote, there are times that being "integral" (whatever that may be) is not the best way to get things done. Sometimes one seeks a desired result and writes accordingly (I'd expect that as a writer you would know this). My post achieved the result desired by those who worked with me on getting this story out.
There is nowhere in my blog where I define myself as a hero or Gafni as a villain - but you have a good imagination, so kudos to you!
It is now a matter of public record that Gafni lacks impulse control (he swore to everyone involved in integral that this would not happen again, and yet it has, as it always does), is highly grandiose (his "response" simply argues that he is more developed than the rest of us and so it's okay for him to sleep with students), and uses threats and manipulations to coerce people into silence (it didn't work with John Dupuy or Robb Smith - and possibly even Diane Hamilton, I don't how he reacted to her - any more than it has with me).
Does that make him a "villain"? I don't think so - but it does make him someone who should not be in leadership, should not be working with female students, and who probably should receive some good and long-term mental health counseling.
Does my calling him out on this and wanting to protect other women from his exploitation make me a "hero"? Not in my mind - it simply means no one else was willing to stand up and say what needed to be said.
You have charged me with theft several times, and yet I have never posted anyone's work on this blog without attributing author and source, with links. Often I have permission to do so, and equally often the authors are grateful for the additional exposure. I guess I still have not met the legal standard (or your ethical standard), so yes, I am guilty of "egregious intellectual property theft." If I have hurt anyone by posting their work here, I am deeply sorry. I have never meant to "steal" work, which is why I always include links to the original source.
I do find it amusing, however, that you seem fond of "amber" values for assessing my blog, but are fully supportive of "post-conventional" values for assessing Gafni's exploitation of the organizations he represents and the students who trust him. It might be just me, but it feels like you have that a bit backwards. Or is that just hypocrisy I smell?
Finally, I'm glad you are through with this discussion - calling me self-righteous while remaining blind to your own more-integral-than-thou crap is really getting old.
hi HW
thanks for your courage to expose this weasel. i have left all things integral with a sad heart about a year ago (after 30 years involvement with ken), mostly because of andrew cohens and his teaching "lineage´s" ever increasing involvement with I-I but then directly after that genpo blew and now marc ,whom i never trusted anyway. evidently there is a very big shadow problem at I-I. i am spiritually involved since 40 years but have never experienced with any affiliated group such a row of sex scandals and such clumsy cover-up attempts,except in my very early years when i was involved in an american christian sect ! maybe this is because since then i study with tantrics who actually have a lineage and know what they are doing. as someone said : with a chögyam trungpa or another experienced buddhist tantric master calling the shots this wouldn´t have happened. shows I-I is mainly wet green wannabe´s!
Post a Comment