Integral Life just published an audio of Ken Wilber tracing back his developmental stages and making a matter-of-fact self-assessment of his shadows and current stage of development. I find this to be very juicy. I’m already familiar with Ken’s history regarding his spiritual practice but this audio revealed more dimensions to his personal story. This is my new fave Ken Wilber audio. It’s a must-hear for all integral geeks out there. Here’s the blurb:

The Many Faces of Ken Wilber

“As merely an autobiographical account of Ken’s own vertical development, spiritual growth, and shadow work, this story stands as a compelling account of his early psychoanalytic work with Bob Young, his journey through Gestalt, dream, and Jungian therapies, and his first satori with Soto Zen teacher, Katagiri Roshi. It then unfolds through his subsequent work in the Vajrayana tradition, where he encountered his root teacher, Chagdud Tulku, along with his second major satori, which extended his exploration into a relationship with Trungpa and Kalu Rinpoches, along with Pema Norbu, who offered the Longchen Nintig teachings, some of the highest transmissions in Dzogchen. He completes the journey with reflections on Adi Da, the most recent teacher who he had considered engaging in a formal relationship, before ending with a summary of his personal psychograph and brief insight into his current inquiry practice, which is a composite of Ramana Maharshi’s “Who am I?” inquiry, Zen’s Shikantaza, Da’s avoiding inquiry, and the core of Dzogchen’s Maha Ati teachings.”

(Note: This is premium content. You need to be logged into your premium Integral Life account in order to listen to this dialogue. Also, Ken uses the latest coloring scheme for describing his developmental level. For more details on colors and altitudes, read up on “An All-Inclusive Framework for the 21st Century – An Overview of Integral Theory” – by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens)

Like I said, very juicy.

As I expected this generated some discussions on Facebook. One of my FB friends wrote:

“…first bit of Wilber for a while – really liked it. What I wondered is whether Ken still has the guys around him to kick his butt, as he critiqued Da for not having…

…

Even though Ken has been really explicit that he does not see himself, or want to be treated as a guru…and that he doesn’t have ‘students’, I do have this impression that a lot of people defer to him as a supreme authority. Somehow I don’t hear in him the humility I used to, and it makes me wonder…”

That comment is a very honest and valid observation from someone who is looking from the outside of Ken Wilber’s circle. So it compelled me to open up and share my first-hand, albeit brief and limited, experience with Ken. So here’s what I wrote (with some edits and spelling corrections):

i can’t speak for everyone, but based on my own experience with my brief involvement with the Integral Institute years ago, i could confidently say that Ken is very open to criticisms. he’s open to hearing people (including young people who are in his circle) voicing their opinions and ideas. i used to have email conversations with him along with others challenging him and he often gets our opinion on things. that said, being the de facto head of I-I he calls the shots on important decisions (from this perspective you can think of Ken as channeling his inner Steve Jobs). from a leadership perspective it’s just natural to call the shots.

also, understand that there’s another level of circle that Ken has, those of his old friends and intellectual peers, who could really call Ken’s b.s. whenever necessary (e.g. Roger Walsh, Frances Vaughan, and others).

let me point out that most people who are attracted to Ken’s work are highly intelligent and are aware of the cultic mentality. we often joked a lot how cultic we were, or how cultic we were perceived by other people. i believe that a lot of us were there because of his *ideas*, his call for *awakening*, not his personality or “guru” authority. for me, it’s a bonus that Ken’s personality is very likeable. he obviously is freakingly intelligent but he also has a sick sense of humor. and i could sense that there’s a deep calm and serenity behind his passion for sharing his ideas.

but that’s just my impression when i was there. i wasn’t really that close to Ken to witness and experience a deeper side of his personality (or whatever personality issues he has). maybe people who got up-close to him have a different picture. but from what i know based on my conversations with people who really got close to Ken, he, in general, is really a wonderful human being. and that’s why i love that bald guy.

And here’s my follow up comment:

Gearoid said: “it’s also worth noting that he’s often said that if he didn’t lay down AQAL theory someone else probably would have”

it’s true. i think he sincerely means that. however, AQAL is the result of Ken’s genius and his obsessive personality (btw, if you’ve seen his scribbles and diagrams on paper, you’d think that the guy is way out there… but that is a feature that a lot of geniuses share: obsessive focus on the chosen subject). there other integral theorists out there whose done a fine job, but in my opinion, nothing comes close to the comprehensiveness of AQAL (and therein lies both its strength and weakness).

anyway, for those who don’t have the opportunity to meet Ken but want to get a sneak peek at his personal side, i highly recommend the following: “Grace and Grit”, “One Taste”, “Simple Feeling of Being”, and “Kosmic Consciousness (CD audio series)”, and this classic interview by Jordan Gruber (which is the first audio interview i’ve listened to) – http://www.enlightenment.com/media/interviews/wilber1.html

Ken’s personality shine in those books and audio. that said, of course, those are only partial look at the many faces of Ken. but that’s the closest thing you can get without actually meeting, working with, and/or living with the bald guy.

Now, for those of you who have been following my blog, you might wonder why I’ve categorized this entry under “Open Practice.” Two reasons: First, my own psychological development has been in a sort of quantum entanglement with Ken Wilber’s work ever since he blew my mind away back in the early 90s. Second, I think that Ken’s openness in the audio is an excellent example of how one should critically approach one’s self-evaluation. Ken exemplifies what my vision for Open Practice is all about–radical openness and honesty about our practice and self-assessment, as best as we possibly can.

This reminded me once again how profoundly I was influenced (and continue to be influenced) by Ken’s writings. I am quite sure that a lot of people out there feel the same.

The developments on WikiLeaks story are fast-paced. As of this writing the mirror sites for WikiLeaks continue to grow, Julian Assange has been granted bail but still remains in prison pending an appeal from the Swedish authorities, hacking group called Anonymous and volunteers sympathetic to WikiLeaks had performed coordinated DoS attacks against Paypal, Visa, Mastercard (and now targeting fax machines), the U.S. government is still trying hard to come up with something “criminal” to charge Julian Assange, all the while blocking federal employees and the Air Force from accessing WikiLeaks and other sites that posted the secret cables (New York Times, The Guardian, or Der Spiegel, be damned. It’s matter of national security because the government says so!).

Like a lot of level-headed people, I too was conflicted about WikiLeaks. So I wondered how integrally-informed people would look at this issue. To my surprise I saw this Facebook post from Robb Smith, CEO of Integral Life and Integral Institute.

Al Qaeda just announced they’re going to use Wikileaks to exploit security weaknesses to kill innocent people. Nice. Assange is a terrorist. His defenders will argue he’s preserving freedom. Not in the real world he’s not. He’s merely a criminal aiding other criminals. Man this is dying for an integral breakdown, wish I had more time.

My first reaction was, really?! I mean, really?! Does Robb really believe what he posted? I was waiting for an “integral breakdown” on this topic. I wanted to get a better idea from what perspective Robb is coming from. Robb’s post generated a lively discussion among integral geeks. But I found most were just philosophical waxing with little to do with facts. So instead of engaging in the debates, I participated in the thread by posting links to news articles, opinions and editorials, and even first-hand accounts from Julian Assange. That was part of my fishing expedition. In the end, I was able to draw a more nuanced opinion from Robb. Here’s a portion from his response:

In a world with a lot of folks who will leverage another’s capabilities to do harm, Assange’s efforts and those of his allies will have serious consequences. I believe that I have to take full responsibility at every step for my ethics and my capabilities. Though I know many of the effects of these leaks will be unpredictably positive, others might be devastating. Just watching how these hackers are now using this interaction as an excuse to try to bring down global retailers, I ask myself: really, is this helpful? Is this humane? So now thug-like rioting in the streets and anarchy-like behavior is what we get? Mark my words, regular folks just trying to go about their day are going to get hurt before this is done. These are the effects that an ethical and mature world citizen would have accounted for. You don’t just shit all over civilization and the rule of law because you can. What an integral view calls for is a massively deep sensitivity to the power we wield and a deep humility at the outsize effects our actions can have.

I still don’t agree with Robb’s view on WikiLeaks. I feel that his view is based on a very partial consideration of the facts surrounding the WikiLeaks phenomenon and the actual laws on freedom of the press and the First Amendment. However, I do respect Robb’s opinion and thank him for taking the time in granting my request for a more detailed exposition of his views. WikiLeaks is a very polarizing subject even among integral geeks.

However, the more perspectives I looked at the more I’m convinced that WikiLeaks has done (and will do) more good than harm, and that the way Julian Assange is being treated and pursued will make him a hero rather than an international super villain. You may be wondering, what are those perspectives which convinced me to take the sides of WikiLeaks? Allow me to weave them in links and quotes…

If we are going to love or hate Julian Assange, it’s better to do it based on our impressions on his own words, instead of the way the mainstream media had painted a caricature of him (e.g. as a rapist and terrorist). Here’s a quote from Assange’s editorial piece on the Australian:

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

Based on the above piece, ask yourself: Does this guy deserve to be treated like a criminal? It seems to me that if the world were his country, then he’s a real-deal patriot.

Now, you may not agree with Assange’s idealism, so let me direct your attention to the following perspectives:

On freedom of expression, here’s Amnesty International’s position on WikiLeaks:

The US government has indicated since July 2010 that it is conducting a legal investigation into the actions of Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange for distributing secret documents.  A range of US political figures have called for a criminal prosecution of Assange.

According to Amnesty International, criminal proceedings aimed at punishing a private person for communicating evidence about human rights violations can never be justified. The same is true with respect to information on a wide range of other matters of public interest.

At the very least, a significant number of the documents released by Wikileaks appear to fall into these categories, so any prosecution based in whole or in part on those particular documents, would be incompatible with freedom of expression.

On whistleblowing and disclosures, here’s a quote from a statement released by The Institute for Public Accuracy signed by ex-intelligence officers, including Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

The big question is not whether Americans can “handle the truth.” We believe they can. The challenge is to make the truth available to them in a straightforward way so they can draw their own conclusions — an uphill battle given the dominance of the mainstream media, most of which have mounted a hateful campaign to discredit Assange and WikiLeaks.

So far, the question of whether Americans can “handle the truth” has been an academic rather than an experience-based one, because Americans have had very little access to the truth. Now, however, with the WikiLeaks disclosures, they do. Indeed, the classified messages from the Army and the State Department released by WikiLeaks are, quite literally, “ground truth.”

On the legal grounds on which the U.S. could pursue WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent article on this. Here’s the relevant quote (links are from the original article).

Even better than commentary, we can also provide legal information on this complicated issue, and today we have for you some high quality legal information from an expert and objective source: Congress’ own research service, CRS. The job of this non-partisan legal office is to provide objective, balanced memos to Congress on important legal issues, free from the often hysteric hyperbole of other government officials. And thanks to Secrecy News, we have a copy ofCRS’ latest memo on the Wikileaks controversy, a report entitled “Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information” and dated this Monday, December 6.

Like this blog post itself, the CRS memo isn’t legal advice. But it is a comprehensive discussion of the laws under which the Wikileaks publishers — or anyone else who obtains or publishes the documents, be it you or the New York Times — might be prosecuted and the First Amendment problems that such a prosecution would likely raise. Notably, the fine lawyers at CRS recognize a simple fact that statements from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Senators, the State Department and others have glossed over: a prosecution against someone who isn’t subject to the secrecy obligations of a federal employee or contractor, based only on that person’s publication of classified information that was received innocently, would be absolutely unprecedented and would likely pose serious First Amendment problems.

On Assange being labeled as a “terrorist”, here’s Michael Moore’s statement, after he contributed $20,000 towards Assange’s bail.

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won’t be so easy because the tables have been turned — and now it’s Big Brother who’s being watched … by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks (“they’ve released little that’s new!”) or have painted them as simple anarchists (“WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!”). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There’s no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don’t want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept … as secrets.

And if you think that support for WikiLeaks is just coming from liberals, here’s a conservative case for WikiLeaks published in The American Conservative.

…the worst hypocrisy throughout this controversy has been in conservatives reflexively defending the government and attacking WikiLeaks. Since when have conservatives believed that Washington should be able to shroud any action it likes in secrecy and that revealing government’s nefarious deeds is tantamount to treason? Isn’t it government officials who might secretly work for corporate, ideological or transnational interests — and against the national interest — who are betraying their country?

Interestingly, Wikileaks’ founder espouses the traditionally conservative, Jeffersonian view that America’s constitutional structure limits and lessens government corruption. Reported Time: “Assange appears to believe that the U.S. has not become ‘a much-worse-behaved superpower’ because its federalism, ‘this strength of the states,’ has been a drag on the combination of the burgeoning power of the central government and a presidency that can expand its influence only by way of foreign affairs.”

As far as mainstream media is concerned, only WIRED was ballsy enough to stick out its head and take the side of WikiLeaks, proclaiming that “WikiLeaks is Good for America.”

WikiLeaks is not perfect, and we have highlighted many of its shortcomings on this website. Nevertheless, it’s time to make a clear statement about the value of the site and take sides:

WikiLeaks stands to improve our democracy, not weaken it.

The greatest threat we face right now from WikiLeaks is not the information it has spilled and may spill in the future, but the reactionary response to it that’s building in the United States that promises to repudiate the rule of law and our free speech traditions, if left unchecked.

Even The Economist has this to say:

Calling Mr Assange a terrorist, for example, is deeply counterproductive. His cyber-troops do not fly planes into buildings, throw acid at schoolgirls or murder apostates. Indeed, the few genuine similarities between WikiLeaks and the Taliban—its elusiveness and its wide base of support—argue against ill-judged attacks that merely broaden that support. After a week of clumsy American-inspired attempts to shut WikiLeaks down, it is now hosted on more than 700 servers around the world.

The big danger is that America is provoked into bending or breaking its own rules, straining alliances, eroding credibility and—because it will not be able to muzzle WikiLeaks—ultimately seeming impotent. In recent years America has promoted the internet as a menace to foreign censorship. That sounds tinny now. So did its joy of hosting next year’s World Press Freedom Day this week. Chinese and Russian glee at American discomfort are a sure sign of such missteps.

The best lessons to bear in mind are those learned in such costly fashion during the past decade of the “war on terror”. Deal with the source of the problem, not just its symptoms. Keep the moral high ground. And pick fights you can win.

As to that “rape” allegations… Remember that there are no criminal charges filed against Assange. He’s just wanted for “questioning.” The more you know about the details of the alleged sex crime, the more you’ll realize that this is a political stunt to keep Assange behind bars while Sweden and the U.S. figure out ways to extradite him. Keeping Assange in prison even after posting bail is obviously more a political ploy than seeking justice for rape victims. Naomi Wolf has an excellent opinion piece on this topic.

How do I know that Interpol, Britain and Sweden’s treatment of Julian Assange is a form of theater? Because I know what happens in rape accusations against men that don’t involve the embarrassing of powerful governments.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation. Lots of people have opinions about the charges. But I increasingly believe that only those of us who have spent years working with rape and sexual assault survivors worldwide, and know the standard legal response to sex crime accusations, fully understand what a travesty this situation is against those who have to live through how sex crime charges are ordinarily handled — and what a deep, even nauseating insult this situation is to survivors of rape and sexual assault worldwide.

And finally, of all the bloggers I’ve read, I find Clay Shirky’s opinion to be the most insightful, nuanced, and right on the money. I very much resonate with his views on WikiLeaks and the long-haul.

I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want.

The Unites States is — or should be — subject to the rule of law, which makes the extra-judicial pursuit of Wikileaks especially nauseating. (Calls for Julian’s assassination are even more nauseating.) It may be that what Julian has done is a crime. (I know him casually, but not well enough to vouch for his motivations, nor am I a lawyer.) In that case, the right answer is to bring the case to a trial.

In the US, however, the government has a “heavy burden”, in the words of the Supreme Court, for engaging in prior restraint of even secret documents, an established principle since New York Times Co. vs. The United States*, when the Times published the Pentagon Papers. If we want a different answer for Wikileaks, we need a different legal framework first.

Having linked and quoted all the above perspectives, I hope you can now see why I’ve taken the side of WikiLeaks.

Then again, regardless of our opinions and philosophical waxings on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, one thing is clear: WikiLeaks has already changed and continues to disrupt journalistic laws around the globe. Other whistleblowing sites will sprout inspired by the example set by WikiLeaks (e.g. see OpenLeaks).

I won’t be surprised if Julian Assange wins the Nobel Peace Prize. If and when that happens, I hope the U.S. won’t behave like China and boycott the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony. If it does, then I believe the Obama administration will be remembered for being on the wrong side of history.

P.S. I’m very disappointed with how the mainstream media in the U.S. is covering the WikiLeaks saga. Thanks to the intertubes I can easily and freely roam around to get perspectives from different countries on the world-wide impact of WikiLeaks. For a more in-depth look at WikiLeaks and the people behind it, see “WikiRebels: The Documentary” via Swedish SVT.

UPDATE – 12/15/10: According to the New York Times, the U.S. is build a case against Assange. Here’s the quote via BoingBoing.

Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.

Among materials prosecutors are studying is an online chat log in which Private Manning is said to claim that he had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files. Private Manning is also said to have claimed that Mr. Assange gave him access to a dedicated server for uploading some of them to WikiLeaks.

love this show

In this post I’ve transcribed Shinzen’s uber-geeky vision of a future when science and meditation will date and mate and give birth to a new kind of something — a new kind of knowing and learning. Keep in mind that the Science of Enlightenment series was recorded more than ten years ago, yet Shinzen’s vision, due to the advancement of neuroscience, is more feasible now than it was before.

Those who are familiar with Ken Wilber’s AQAL meta-theory would be in familiar territory. But I find Shinzen’s lucid articulation of his vision more appealing to the geek and meditator in me. I hope that my newborn son would get to see this frakkin‘ vision come true someday.

Session 24: Track 4 – A New Model for Enlightenment

Now let’s talk about the most significant thing, which is: We’ve talked about what science could contribute to meditation; we’ve talked about what meditation could contribute to science; What can come out of both of these things? What can they come up with together? What can the scientist and the meditator, if they are indeed different people, come up with together? Or what can a single person who is both a deep meditator and a scientist come up with bringing these two worlds together? Seems to me that it lies in basically two areas.

The first is very practical. As our brain-imaging technology advances. And as our knowledge of psycho-physiology, perceptual psychology, neuroscience, etc. advances, at some point it would be feasible to really look at the physiological concomitance, number one of high concentration, and number two of enlightenment itself. Now of course in the early part of this series I mentioned that we know some very gross and general things about the physiology of meditators in terms of their alpha wave, their electrical skin conductivity, these kinds of stuff. But this is general. It’s not specific at all because at this point we can’t really look at a real-time functioning brain.

The deep and subtle changes that must take place physiologically when a person goes into high states of concentration and when a person goes beyond concentration to enlightenment, those we cannot yet view objectively, but someday we’ll be able to. When we can we can talk about creating an entirely new model for enlightenment, one completely different from anything that anybody ever came up with including the Buddha. The Buddha could still only describe, brilliantly, subjective experience. The Buddha was not in a position to say something like, “when the rate of processing of the hypothalamus falls beyond a critical ratio to the rate of processing of the amygdala then the fixated self dissolves.” I’m not saying that that’s true, ok. What something that links function, structure, on one hand, to mystical experience on the other hand, no human being at this point in history has been able to make a statement along those lines. Someday we will be able to. That will represent a tremendous contribution that science will have made to the meditative path. Because if we have really precise description of the relationship between physiological changes and mystical experience, then we can start to talk about using biofeedback to facilitate the process of meditation.

Now, I’m quite aware that biofeedback is a technology that we now have, but I would suggest to you that the biofeedback that we now have is almost useless in terms of enlightenment. It may help people relax, and get a little more in contact with themselves, and it has good effects for sure. However, the kind of thing that I have in mind would require and exceedingly precise kind of biofeedback where we knew exactly what kind we were dealing with, we knew the necessary and sufficient physiological correlates of enlightenment itself, and then we could use biofeedback to train those correlates more efficiently. Now, having said that much, please do not think that I am so naive as to think that that in it of itself is going to bring a person into enlightenment. However, I would strongly suspect that it could cut the time required to a tenth. There’ll be all sorts of other ancillary trainings and learnings and life experiences that would have to go around that. You’re not just gonna hook somebody up to a machine and just because their physiology emulates enlightenment think that they’re gonna get enlightened. But boy, it could sure make my job a lot easier, if we could do stuff like this. And that’s what I’m looking towards from practical point of view. Why?

Well, this planet is going to hell in a hand basket. We may not last long enough to discover all these neat things. And when the patient is mortally ill you start considering heroic treatments. What I’m describing is, I realize pretty radical, may seem pretty radical, but meditation addresses, as I have endeavored to point out, the fundamental problem on this planet, the fundamental cycle. It addresses it directly. And it is able to crack the fundamental cycle — the cycle that underlies all of the specific problems. It is able to crack that. Great, but, it’s an elitist thing at this point. Only a small number of people participate in the meditation endeavor. Not elitist because meditators don’t want to spread it. Meditators do their best to spread it. But it’s too hard, it takes too much time, people aren’t interested, it doesn’t seem relevant. If we had a way of bringing deep experiences more easily, then we could reach a significant portion of the population, and we could start to make a change on this planet.

I have an acquaintance who is a brain wave scientist who also speaks Tibetan and is a many decades meditator, and he knows the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama told him a personal conversation, “You’re a scientist, you work with brain waves. I wish you would create a device that would make it easier for people to meditate. A scientific device of some sort.” No less than an authority than the Dalai Lama, who if anyone on this planet speaks for world Buddhists, is thinking along these lines too. This would be one important thing that could come about as a cooperative endeavor: Scientists using advanced tools — not what we’ve got now but what we may have someday — to really understand what goes on with the neurophysiology of a person as they go through the different stages on this path.

Session 24: Track 5 – New Pespectives On the One Reality

The other area where science and meditation come together is, it may turn out that they’re both investigating the same reality from different angles. The parallels are rather striking. One can’t help think that it’s not just a coincidence, it’s not just projection. But when we see parallel after parallel in the deep areas of modern science and in the things that meditators and mystics report, we have to at least take seriously the conjecture that this might not be a coincidence, and that what we might be talking about here is finding a paradigm that is broad enough to include both science and spirituality as a single new discipline, that is neither science nor spirituality but the next human paradigm. Once again the Dalai Lama has called for something like this, something very much along these lines.

Spiritual teachers in general, and meditation teachers specifically, like to use parables or metaphors to describe aspects of the path. And for me personally, my best metaphors, the ones that speak to me most directly, are all derived from science. The issue is: Are these just useful metaphors, or is there a little bit more to it than that? Is the fact that there seems to be so much parallelism, an indication of an underlying common reality that both the scientist and the meditator are viewing, one from the subjective world of studying consciousness (which is the meditator’s world), and the other from the objective world of looking at time, space, matter and energy. If it is the case that the experts in the subjective world and the experts in the objective world are agreeing because they’re seeing the same thing then this gives us some very important information about the nature of reality. In the sciences one always works for greater and greater generality. Generality doesn’t mean vagueness in science as it does in colloquial English. Generality means universality. So they speak of GUT — The Grand Unified Theory. And they even speak of TOE — The Theory of Everything.

Certainly, any theory of everything would have to include mystical experience because that is a major part of human experience around this planet and in all ages. If nothing else, for sure, the sciences provide wonderful metaphors for situations and experiences that come up in meditation. But as I say, there’s so many of them and the parallelism is so consistent that it may mean something, and certainly this is something that will be interesting to see as it develops in the future.

Big thanks to Chade Meng (aka the Buddha in the Googleplex) for making this happen. I hope that someday Shinzen’s approach and style of teaching meditation be taught in universities as part of the humanities, health, and science departments.

Thanks, Shinzen! Today, Google Talks. Tomorrow, TED Talks… moment by moment, just this…

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to every one reading this at this very moment. Attention is a rare commodity nowadays. So, thank you for your time.

I’ve been blogging my heart out for more than five years now and I feel blessed to be able to continue with this practice. Like most bloggers, I started blogging to get some attention. However, my ultimate drive has always been to stay true to my original intention: to share ideas with passion and compassion.

Most of my readers know by now that one of my primary interests is the domain of philosophy. Philosophy is “love of wisdom.” By definition, philosophy covers everything in the subjective domain: beliefs, religion, theology, psychology, spirituality, phenomenology, and, ultimately, consciousness itself. For me, there’s nothing more important than to have an understanding of our place in this Kosmos–no matter how fleeting it could be.

Aside from sharing information and my own perspectives on things, I often wonder how I could give back to all the people who pass by my (hyper)stream. Serendipitously, a few days ago, Brian Johnson (my boss from my Zaadz days) asked me if I could help out in giving away FREE subscriptions to PhilosophersNotes for the holidays. I am more than happy to

That’s why I added this banner to the footer section of all pages of this blog.

What is PhilosophersNotes? They’re like mini-CliffsNotes for self-development books or “Concentrated wisdom for your hero’s journey.”

For me, the best gift is the gift of wisdom. That’s why I’m passing this gift to you. It’s a perfect gift to people
from all walks of life, be they theists, atheists, agnostics, and/or integralists

Brian’s goal is to give away 1 million free subscriptions. His intention is to inspire as many people as possible. So please pass this message along to your friends.

Thanks again for your time and your continued support. May you have a blessed holidays. Take care and stay lucid.

Peace, love, happiness, and Divine discontent,
~C

I quickly created an account to experience the look and feel of the site. Below are my first impressions. The site is still officially on beta so I’m going to ignore some of the bugs and focus on the site’s features and overall potential. I’ll start on a positive note.

Likes:

– Site design is easy on the eyes. Navigation is straightforward.

– Excellent welcoming introductions to new members. But unless you’re already familiar with Integral theory, you’d have to dig a little deeper to understand what the site is all about. For that you have to read up on the about section.

– Blogging feature with rich text editing. Dang, another rabbit hole for me to play with

– Very functional private messaging feature with rich text editing and folders for messages.

– Dynamic community activity page.

– Profile page with aggregated content contribution (e.g. blogs, comments). See my activities on my profile.

– Global search feature. Try this search: http://integrallife.com/search/node/religion

– Vast array of high-quality contents and, more importantly, action items (aka injunctions) categorized into Learn, Apply, and Awaken channels.

Dislikes:

– Although IL makes it clear that there are free and premium contents, the premium contents are not clearly marked. I get annoyed by pop up messages notifying me that I need to upgrade my account whenever I click on premium contents.

– At this time, Integral Life is not a full-pledged social network e.g. no “friending”, no profile privacy settings, no groups, etc. But you can add members as contacts by sending them private messages.

– When you upgrade your account, it doesn’t explicitly say whether the charge is monthly or annual. IL should clearly spell out the premium account during the upgrade process.

So those are my initial impressions. Next are my musings on Integral Life’s business model and its potential role within the Integral Multiplex.

I didn’t see any ads, so it looks like IL’s biz model revolves around subscriptions and selling integral products via the Integral Life Store. Integral Naked has been relatively successful with its subscription model. But the launch of Integral Life makes Integral Naked (and the Multiplex community) redundant.

For example, do I need to upgrade my to Integral Life if I already have a paid subscription to Integral Naked? As much as I would miss it, I’m prepared to give up my Integral Naked account and ride with Integral Life instead.

Integral Life is a much improved version of Integral Naked and the Multiplex community put together. If I-I is to practice what it preaches, then I expect Integral Life to transcend and include Integral Naked and other elements of integral multiplex real soon. Otherwise, there’s just going to be a lot redundancy that would confuse their already niche target demographics.

That’s all for now. Will continue to explore the Integral Life rabbit hole and report back on my “fluffy” adventures.

NOTE: I also posted this review on my Integral Life blog.

UPDATE: I knew it was too good to be true. I was notified by IL admin that only *some* sections on the archive would be free. Whether the free stuff would be only available to basic and premium members, as opposed to non-members, is still unclear to me. I’ve updated my original blog post in line with this new information.

Now, I don’t know what other factors are involved with Visser-Wilber rift (or the Beck-Wilber rift, and other rifts in the integral world). But judging by the content of the above video, I think Visser’s heart is in the right place. I could relate with his attitude on Integral Theory. Like Visser, I also admire Wilber. I owe Wilber a big deal for shifting my thinking. Integral Theory (AQAL) expanded and elevated my understanding of the world around me. What I like best about integral theory is that it is both inclusive and self-reflective. Integral theory eventually evolved into complex memetic color codes with dizzying matrices of states and stages. However, the Four Quadrants (4Q) is still my favorite heuristic tool because it enables me to map out different perspectives while valuing my own subjective experience. In fact, 4Q is my insipiration for blogging my heart out.

I’m not that articulate in discussing the technicalities, deep philosophy, and uber-mystical stages of integral. I don’t play that game because I don’t have the advanced education, experience and interest to pursue such things. But here is what I know: Integral theory taught me how to think rather than what to think. It taught me how to make sense of philosophy, psychology, science, mysticism, spirituality, and my own perception of reality.

Whether Wilber go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers in the modern world or just another pop psychology author in the New Age section of Barnes and Noble remains to be seen. I’m hoping it would be the former.

Serendipitously, today is the start of the First Biennial Integral Theory Conference. The theme of the conference includes “a focus on community, discourse, and dialogue,” and “multiple forums in which to engage in critical reflection and debate the current state of the Integral field.” Sounds interesting. We’ll see.

Btw, is there someone out there who’s live-blogging the conference? Too bad I wasn’t invited I wonder if Frank Visser got invited.

UPDATE: Marmalade pointed out that Frank Visser got invited. See The Academic Emergence of Integral Theory published on Integral World.

According to Sunday Times, “Taleb is now the hottest thinker in the world.” I believe so too. Taleb is on my top list of t(h)inkers. I’m no good with numbers and complex statistics but Taleb’s kind of skeptical empiricism balances my propensity for integral idealism. I resonate with his attitude on serendipity and serenity.

“You find peace by coming to terms with what you don’t know.”

I also find his attitude on religion very interesting.

“Scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they talk about
religion. Religion has nothing to do with belief, and I don’t believe
it has any negative impact on people’s lives outside of intolerance.
Why do I go to church? It’s like asking, why did you marry that woman?
You make up reasons, but it’s probably just smell. I love the smell of
candles. It’s an aesthetic thing.”

I remember reading somewhere that Taleb is also working on (or is interested on writing) a book that tackles religion and belief. I’m looking forward to it. With a $4m book advance fee, his book ought to be promising. It would be cool to see a debate between Taleb and the New Atheists, specifically, Dawkins.

I now have a good idea of where Taleb stands on environmental and ecological issues.

“Don’t disturb complicated systems that have been around for a very
long time. We don’t understand their logic. Don’t pollute the planet. Leave
it the way we found it, regardless of scientific ‘evidence’.”

However, it’s still not clear to me where he stands on the climate change belief spectrum. But I suspect that his attitude on this issue is closer to Michael Crichton than Al Gore.

One of Taleb’s top life tips is to maximize serendipity by going to parties.

“Go to parties. You can’t even start to know what you may find on the
envelope of serendipity. If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.”

I don’t suffer from agoraphobia but I’m not a party person. I also don’t have colleagues to boss around. I like having a small social network of people in meatspace. But in cyberspace, the sky is the limit.   Good thing I have blogging to fall on which compensates for my introversion. But I understand that Taleb is right. Until the advent of fully-immersive telepresence technologies, there’s no substitute for human face to face conversations.

What I like about Taleb is that he is tenaciously confident with what he knows in his practice (e.g. mathematics, complex financial markets), his skeptical attitude towards grand sweeping theories, and his passion for philosophy and epistemology. I’m looking forward to him fleshing out his philosophical views in a future book.

In the meantime, thanks to Nassim Nicholas Taleb (or to his webmaster) for linking to my review of his book, The Black Swan. I’m getting a constant stream of visitors coming from www.fooledbyrandomness.com for the past few weeks now. Now that’s another classic case of serendipitous blogging.