Tags: integral


The Development of the Individual and the Movement of a Community Occur Simultaneously

People (holons) collecting together pull the overall development of all persons within that collective up to where the ‘norm’ is. (Or in not so ideal cases, pulls them down.) The communal aspect of a person (a holon) is intrinsic to the evolutionary drive. It could be said that it is a determinant of the directionality of evolution itself.

If we allow for the emergence of integral in the collective, and let that grow, it would eventually become bigger than what is dominant now, and actually ‘pull’ others into integral. [‘grabs you by the neck and pulls you to that level’ KW in KC.] Both movement (or evolutionary drive), and the development of holons go hand in hand; they occur simultaneously. So if we desire to see integral succeed, (i.e. we want movement) then the people (holons) need to be given room to grow.

There is another aspect of community development that is also equally important but may be difficult to understand, which is leadership. I believe addressing leadership gets at the heart of integral organizational development. (Unlike the crap presented at IOL by applying the quadrants to (non-existent) social holons.)

There are three aspects to organizational or community development. The individual holons, the container for the collection of holons, and the leadership. All three have an influence on how the organization develops. The individual holons need to be developed individually (ILP), the container needs to be healthy (good systems/processes, adequate functions, etc.), and the leaders need tools to help along the other two.

There are persons (holons) that are (or either naturally become) the ‘hubs’ or leaders of their community. These people must be given attention, and an extra set of tools to navigate new terrain as movement occurs. Perhaps we can also determine the hubs and nodes of the community by looking at the relationships between the holons and plotting those. The individuals that have not only the most number of connection, but also the most influential connections are the hubs.

some notes on coaching / consulting

Fundamental or foundational questions:
Where are you? Where do you want to be? Are you clear about what you want? If not, get clear. How do you get there? What do you need to shift? The coach: You and I are partners, and how do we close this gap towards the future?

A coach says, "When I'm talking to a client, I take notes. Either if it sounds relevant to me, or I think it's relevant to them. A lot of times based on their language alone, helping them observe that is powerful. Helping people notice things."

Coaching is forward looking, and psychotherapy is looking at the past. (generally speaking)

Some old thoughts (addressed to a coach):
In your careful balancing of challenge/support, is this entirely your intuitve process, or is it augmented by some setup designed process? And if there isn't, have you thought about designing a process to stimulate, and nurture growth in participatory groups the way you do with people in private? Like I'm wondering how does this play out in culture? In the public or social sphere? Getting support, practice, and challenge as individuals does not necessarily help the maturity of the culture or organization.

The map is not the territory. So we desperately need some good navigators! You help others with navigating the terrain. You steer or help align people to their natural course for healthy development (Kegan has some stuff on this). Ken's work, and most of the stuff that I'm aware of of, is a frozen static representation of development, a snap shot at every altitude, and horizon. This map is useful only up to a certain point. It's only the preliminary work, and it's just the beginning. What you're doing on the other hand, is seeing and exploring the spaces, the gaps, the edges between the stages.

thoughts on mantras

This kinda relates to this post on the correct way to chant mantras. YES, I'm hung up on this a little bit, because I hear people chant mantras wrongly all the time, so I will keep writing about this. I'm well aware that I'm stuck, and I'm fine with it for the moment.

Not maintaining the integrity of the rhythms of mantras is equivocal to not maintaining the correct accent of words in Mandarin chinese. I know it sounds extreme, and it's a way to convey how I feel about this. If you don't maintain the correct accent of words in chinese, no one will understand you. For example, if I changed the accent of banana, it could also mean elephant's foot. Yeah, no kidding. When you strip away the correct pronunciation, and the rhythms of mantras, you don't have a mantra anymore, you have a song, or some ordinary series of words strung together. The power of the sound is gone, and has been replaced by noise.

If you are serious about the practice of mantras, (I'm referring to Vedic mantras in particular), then you will value the structure of mantras. The word mantra can be broken into man, manas or mind, and tra, tool. Mantras are mind tools that were created and perfected through their power in sound. Sound has many levels of depth of understanding. A sound is more than just a sound, it is a vibration, and conveys an idea of an object; it is imbued with meaning. And sound also indicates the consciousness of the person, and conveys their subtle presence. This subtle presences is none other than turiya.

When you bastardize a mantra by changing the rhythms and melody, you are smashing the depth, and flattening it to the grossest level of manifestation. Please do not engage in such an insipid form of practice in front of me. And for you integral geeks out there, here's some KW to back up my fierceness on this topic:
Mantras are Zone #1 injunctions that can help with particular state training, and can induce ordinary and nonordinary peak experiences. "When you correctly follow those injunctions, you will have a series of phenomenological experiences." -KW, Integral Spirituality, Ch. 3 (My italics.) Yes, correctly, because otherwise you are just wasting your time.

integral salons: what is the intent, really?

A week ago paul and dan wrote a few posts on integral salons. I'd love to see a continuation on this subject from all ye bloggers out there.. any takers? My own thoughts relate to the intent of salons in particular. Why salons, what are people seeking? Could the proclaiming of what we are looking for as salons actually limit the emergence of what could be, of what is being sought after with a craving so deep, that it has me wondering how I could even want something I've never tasted?

For the past year or so I've loosely held on to the overarching intent that we created for iNOW. And while it still rings as authentic, it doesn't point to what I am feeling. I want to convey the meaning and weight of what I am now understanding as a necessary step in radical commitment. The first thing I have to address is this word salon, which seems to imply a mere gathering of people with loose intentions that are largely (and usually) of an intellectual nature. No, this is not what I am looking for. This I can accomplish with a casual dinner party of eight at my place. And in the online sphere, it is totally tiresome to join Yet Another Yahoo! group, or social network, or forum, or other antiquated form of collaboration. I mean, hello! Welcome to blogs, RSS and the amazing usage of hyperlinks!

Okay so salons are out for me. Yes! I mean it!

And so perhaps all this talk of integral salons is besides the point. We need constellations of happenings, events, ceremonies, single chaotic puncture-points in the vast blank sheet of boredom draped over all of us...
Well see now, that's not it for me either. I mean that's certainly part of it, but not quite the big concept. If all we had were these one-time events, I feel that we would lack the intimacy of challenging each other. Every encounter between us would be a flurry of greetings and kisses in the air, with beautiful states of creativity and a smattering of small jabs here and there. There must be a deeper commitment to each other, a stretch for each of us, and an endeavor to sustain the connections between us. We grow to learn who we are chiefly through contact with others.

So what would be a word on the spectrum of commitment beyond salons? Culture? Community? I should hope it includes some form of both culture and community... What is the balance between the individual and collective behaviors? How does one allow for both freedom and security? What would be the values, norms and artifacts? And what of my generation of screenagers, how is technology all a part of this concept?

I have no answers yet, but I feel like ongoing posts like these are the first explorations of an accurate picture.

integrally aware?

A common language or vocabulary certainly has its advantages. And while I'm ever so grateful for the theory, and how much it has helped to steer common understanding, there's just something ever so slightly off about having to refer to every experience with AQALese terms. It's like IKEAfying the beauty of ones experience into a homogenous blob of smoothness and simplicty. Or turning art into a paint by numbers project. You have taken that which is moving, and have frozen it in place. I mean, is it really true that no meaningful discussion can be had without these words?

What words and phrases might serve to expand our awareness and our audience? Some may be just as pointed as the ones I criticize, while others I hope, will have the effect of only lightly touching the experience, giving it freedom to flow, and to continue moving. I haven't had the chance to give this much thought, although I'm sure the implicit terms will emerge soon enough!

A smallish list:
- post-postmodern
- becoming truly human
- the Network Age (not Information Age or New Age)
- spiritual smorgasbord (not new age spirituality) or multispirituality
- cultural interpreters
- feel into the texture or feel into the context

- Participation Age
- see different horizons

(no subject)

'One-in-Each, Each-is-One, Each-in-All, All-in-Each, One-in-All'
--Ken Wilber, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (2nd revised edition, 2000; Shambhala Publications: Boston, MA)

All as one?

I gotta write that down in Hindi for my own understanding:
Ek isse mein, isse eki hain, isse sab mein, sab isse mein, ek sab mein.

AUR Sab yahi hain?

yuck. talking about verses embodying.

The ways in which individualistic societies try to manifest cultivistic attributes in their communities makes me strangely uncomfortable. The feeling is quite akin to drinking milk that has just spoiled. It appears to me as a need to stroke ones ego in an artificial sense of belonging somewhere. And instead of genuine moments of deep intimacy, all we have is a collection of fragmented, and distracted openness. Attacking symptoms of a felt need, society thinks it is making progress. When perhaps instead, it is creating grooves in inconvenient places (bad fengshui) and not healthy or beneficial for all, each, and One.

collective holons

Holons which collect together pull the overall development of all holons within the collective up to where the 'norm' is. The collective aspect of holons seem to be intrinsic to the evolutionary drive, it is a determinant of the directionality of evolution itself. If we say that the dominant (or prevailing) level of development is at blue/orange capacity, we know we can expect more and more young kids to hit worldcentric earlier than ever, given what they are growing up in and surrounded by.

If we create or allow for the emergence of integral in the collective, and let that grow it would eventually become bigger than what is dominant now, and actually 'pull' the world into integral. ['grabs you by the neck and pulls you to that level' KW in KC.] So it is also possible to encourage the growth of holons in levels beyond integral (including non-dual).

The idea that there will always be LESS people at higher stages is not absolutely true because in humans these stages are transitional, in the long term no particular age group is ever stuck at one level for very long. This does not conflict with the tenets either.

But this does mean that both 'movement' (or evolutionary drive) and the development of holons must go hand in hand; they occur simultaneously. So if we desire to see I-I and/or integral succeed, (i.e. we want movement) then the holons collectively need to be given room to grow.

Now these hubs (vs. nodes), they are not higher as I was postulating before but they have something 'extra' that makes them with the cohesiveness of a collection of holons. In our MARKETING, I'd say we must aim to find catalysts of all kinds for the development of a holon in social dimensions (or collective holons), whether they be specific individuals of higher development, tools, processes, artifacts or even systems (such as II as a business). (Is INaked an artifact, and IU a tool?)

found this interesting too:
CI - community approach to defining it