Here are a few nuggets that came out of our last discussion:
What does it mean to be “too heady” and what does it look like to be in your body? How is this emphasis on body not more Green?
New metaphors/models to present Integral theory
Who would we present this new model to (Charles question on who would be the target audience)?
How much hierarchy is needed, how much can be removed? Dominator vs. growth hierarchies?
Development – linear or not?
Integral 2.0 or more Green? Is Green being sufficiently integrated?
00:00 – ground rules
8:07 – disagreement with concept of subtle and causal body
9:00 – shadow of Integral: Arrogance
10:20 – Integralists who are not Integral, too much headiness, Wilber’s books too long and repetitive, bias for Buddhism, value judgements that higher development is better,
12:40 – Integral community is head only, excludes heart and body, not tending to the animal parts of us,
16:40 – lazy definitions, how is all the body talk not just Green? lack of debate, ass kissing Ken Wilber, abuse in the Integral community,
19:05 – overemphasis on headiness – spatial/rational thinking,
22:00 – arrogance in IT,
25:50 – what kind of intellect are we talking about? certain structure of consciousness is dominating.
29:10 – issue with mental excluding body and heart,
30:20 – academic lecture as performance art, people at Amber feeling attacked, alienating lower stages,
33:00 – “larger” more neutral than higher/lower, is there a shadow – are people motivated by a sense of not being enough or wanting to be right? could be motivated by a psychological wounding.
34:50 – Integral is reintegrating Orange and shadows,
35:13 – lower stages still live within us,
37:27 – Integral as anti-Green sensitivity avoidance, understanding anti-hierarchy,
42:45 – bias towards higher-education, depicting Integral development in an enneagram model,
44:25 – if we do away with hierarchy, do we destroy Integral? Dominator vs. growth hierarchy, changing metaphor of structure stages where people don’t value rank,
50:00 – look at old model and design new metaphors, Gebser doesn’t see structures as developmental, non-linear emergence, going back to go forward,
53:45 – advocating for hierarchy, holding horizontal and vertical growth, how to not lose all of these distinctions?
55:40 – content vs. presentation of theory,
56:50 – keep structure, how to include IT in a larger unity,
59:00- questioning linearity of development, do entire groups of people go through developmental stages? Integral hasn’t integrated postmodern deconstruction of linearity,
1:03:38 – we drop the views of the structures but not the structure itself, can we really thoroughly access the lower stages? mental still taking priority over the lower stages,
1:08:20 – Kundalini awakening as metaphor for non-linearity, hard vs soft data,
1:12:00 – closing statements, we are still coming from all the stages, lower levels may be bigger than higher, are we talking about Green here? Who are we presenting Integral to? How to measure someone’s stage?
AFTER THE MEETING OF THE INTEGRAL CROSSFIRE PRACTICE GROUP
Finding a decision on how these crossfire talks can evolve, how they can/should be structure, what agreements do we need to make etc. A demonstration of a peer decision making process and of shared leadership.