"Holons" Comes Through Big!

yeah, very cool issue. and thanks for pointing it out. i didn't even see the link to my blog until you've mentioned it. haha.

anyway, back to the Pavlina issue. i don't completely agree with Ken's/Colin's judgment of Pavlina. yes, he does have a strong shade of orange/green, but i think he can hold multiple perspectives at the same time, is open to states, and recognize the validity of stages of consciousness, etc. citing his his interests in psychic stuff and judging him based on that “magical thinking” would be very very very partial. for example, Aurobindo (and the Mother) dabbled in occult and psychic stuff that would make uber-rational people squirm, but did that make one of the fathers of integral, less integral? you tell me :)

as for Pavlina selling LOA stuff, that's the orange/green kicking in. i don't see anything wrong with that. for example, WIE had lots of questionable ads on their magazine, but does that make the magazine less integral? another example, Integral Naked previously pimped out Bill Harris (another LOA teacher), does that make IN less integral? you tell me :)

bottomline, i think it's very very very partial judging Pavlina (or anyone else for that matter) just by a cursory glance at his blog. i say we engage the guy in a dialogue and let's take it from there.

one more note, i remember reading the book Spiral Dynamics way back. one thing that struck me was that, one of the examples of integral (i think it's yellow or turquoise) that the book cited is not a fancy philosopher, mystic, uber-intellectual person. the example was a humble forrest ranger doing his job in the grand scheme of things. if you have the book, you can help me look it up. i don't have the book anymore.

btw, i love the new look of your site. it rocks! :)

~C

I personally can't wait to hear what you have to say about the film 300.

Yes to Ophra and Boomeritis. I love Ophra and I can also critique her shows as well.
The “Happiness” show was really lame on various levels.
I took the test and I am completely dissatisfied with my life and I'm extremely happy about it!   hahaha!

I agree with the following post. - Marco ;-)

http://until.joe-perez.com/2007/04/how-to-talk-about-altitude-or-stations.html

Hi Julian! as you may guess, I agree with the link to the post I wrote ;-)

please do bear in mind that the contrast between precision and vagueness is a typically BLUE (i.e., turquoise) concern, and that at BLUE-VIOLET (i.e., indigo) what was once seen as vagueness may be perceived as a deeper union and harmony that allows generously for a level of theoretical disagreement

or, if that doesn't speak to you, never mind :)

yep, i also dig Joe's post too. here's the comment i left on his uber-colorful blog post :)

“Depending on whether one is focused on the blogger or the blog content, one could arrive at different judgments regarding the best color label or altitude marker. With blogs, it's a very, very hard call. Much harder than with a magazine, newspaper, or mainstream media reportage. The blog is personal; the person and the blog are intertwined more so than any other medium. Judging altitude in the blogosphere should be different than other sorts of judgments one might make.”

excellent. well said. a bit technical and heavy on the color-coded jargon but i do get your point :)

allow me to paraphrase the Spiral wizards: it's not the color of people, but the color in people. it's not the color of bloggers, but the colors expressed in their blogs.

my two cents.

~C

I reply in Subpersonalities, shadow, and The Secret. The conversation continues….

THere are many here at zaadz (as well as many many places on the net and in the meat world) woh appear to be ready to explore a twee bit out of their largely amber religious orientation, bless us all ;) I get overwhelmed with all these 'ascended masters' who are inventions dating back to HP Blavatsky and Annie Besant, angels et al. This is the level that takes in ideas espoused in say the secret the most dont you think? Is this level really green, or is it more red to amber?

actually, pavlina's wife told me 3 weeks ago what colour you were going to paint your new office. it was so march news by the time you told us… she said she wanted you to have that colour. it worked!

new workspace sounds cool - i wish you happy working in it. i like the standard you set for i-i. i think it's a reasonable standard for everyone. shame not everyone else agrees.

some of the … ahem.. more senior staff members at I-I swear blind publicly that some unsubstantiated (and equally dubious) metaphysical beliefs are objective fact, in exactly the same way epistemologically as the purveyors of the so-called law of attraction do, although this has no bearing necessarily on the significant value of the integral concept itself, just something which i think should be addressed as much as the l.o.a., and something which would be addressed routinely by i-i themselves if their self-correction systems were authentically growth - and reality - oriented.

hah! exactly what i said  :) checkout Pavlina's reply on Joe's blog. he (i assume it's the real Pavlina) finally took the bait. now you decide :)

Steve Pavlina says: “You seem to be overanalyzing. Why hasn't anyone involved in this debate simply dropped me an email to ask my motivations for actions that appear confusing? People in the integral community are taking a valiant third-person stab at it, but wouldn't be more intelligent to simply ask me? Direct communication would give you a lot more insight than distanced speculating. Last time I checked, I was still breathing. :)”

Read more.

i find pavlina to be immensely likeable, inspiring, largely walking his talk, leading from the front, addressing a whole range of great issues from pebble-sized to mountain-sized, with some really valuable usable information for young and old alike.

however (you knew there was a but didn’t you…) i am highly dubious of a sufficiently compelling argument being possible which would convince me - or anyone of the wisdom of distorting objective reality (insofar as we know it) to the extent that the secret does, and claiming that it is contextually valid for people at a certain stage of their development. an untruth is an untruth. no amount of zen relativism of any hue is going to change that fact. in what way is this not disingenuous and patronising towards readers and potential customers, in what way is this not irresponsible?

simplifying an argument or a principle or a concept or a representation of an existential reality is not the same as falsifying it. metaphors - great tools, can’t think without them. similes - great tools. simplified models - great tools. myths - great tools. all can be tailored to the stage of development and age of the student or learner. fanciful bullshit - great tool for fleecing the gullible.

i think it sad that the human qualities such as inspiration, passion, creativity, wonder, hopes, dreams, mystery, vision etc of so many people are being led up the blind alley of the secret - and any other belief system which abuses and misappropriates a person’s reason in that way.

then again, it’s not surprising, since critical thinking appears to be a dispensable optional extra in schools, government, and culture worldwide (with few exceptions), at the very time that the human race needs to utilise it probably more than any other aspect of consciousness. there is in fact more than one sucker born every minute, a tragic and wholly avoidable statistic. to misquote pascal - the $ecret has its reasons that reason knows nothing of.

what really scares me is that some of the people who came up with it (as with many other systems and concepts) actually believe it, think they are honouring their truth, and being the change. doh.

Julain said: “Integral is an alternative to this pathological nonsense, not in bed with it - or it ain't integral at all…”

last time i checked. “Integral” means comprehensive, inclusive, balanced, not leaving anything out. ” at least that's what Ken says all the time. maybe that's why IN got in bed with Bill Harris, Gafni, Deepak Chopra, and more. nothing wrong with that.

let me quote Steve Pavlina:

“Now why would I recommend a product like The Secret? Obviously it's not the most brilliant and aware creation out there. However, for many of my readers, learning about the LoA is the next step they need to take. Those for whom it's a step backwards will simply disregard/dismiss it as fluffy nonsense, as many people in the integral community have already done.

“There are very few integrally-minded products of sufficient quality for me to recommend. I've evaluated much integral material, including ILP in a box, but I don't think it will be effective for my audience. Too much of the material is overintellectualized, especially when I consider my readership and their concerns.”

so whatever happened to meeting people where they're at? or having good ole fashioned dialogue instead of overanalzing with colors and memes left and right?

my two cents.

~C

noted. but you haven't addressed my previous points. why can I-I pimp out Holosync (e.g. Bill Harris), Gafni (um, nuff said), and Deepak Chopra (e.g. quantum healing, which a lot of quantum physicists think it's baloney), yet take full critical stand on Pavlina pimping out The Secret? i'm interested to hear what you think about this bro.

bottomline: it's so not integral to pass up judgement on Pavlina *without* engaging him in a dialogue. Ken had a dialogue with you to smackdown The Secret. a truly integral discussion would get Pavlina's point of view. this is basic journalism. so why not get him on IN and have them and Ken do a dialogue on this thing. instead of just doing a third-person perspective on the poor guy.

here's $2M. i'm buying Connecticut.

~C (for Connecticut Ave.)

Awesome conversation, guys!  I'm with ~C here.  I understand Julian's/Ken's/my own criticisms of “The Secret” very well.  And I agree with them (particularly my own) to a large extent.  But third- (and fourth- and fifth-) person criticism can only get you so far.  One of the things I really like about the “Beyond Belief” series is that it involves a debate among scientists in first- and second- person, as well as third-person.  For us to truly develop a critical analysis on Pavlina, we need him in the z-bate.

I, for one, enjoy Pavlina's blog.  But, I don't feel I know enough about his interiors to make a judgment on where he's coming from and whom he is addressing when he talks about the LoA.

My $2M
~M

“i wouldn't be “passing judgement” on pavlina's blog were it not listed as turquoise in holons. this is about the big problem of new age spirituality for integral - not about pavlina per se and i mean him no offense.”

noted. but here's what i noticed. “integral” peeps object to turquoise ranking on the Holons, but what about the blogs categorized as green and below? hmmm… looks like tunnel-vision to me.

that's what's tricky about ranking people/blogs. i understand that somehow people had to make calls based on what information is at hand. and for the record, (as a long time reader of Pavlina) i agree with the ranking of turquoise on Pavlina's blog because he can shift to and from any level and state and also hold a sane integral conversation. moreso now that i've heard directly from the guy. he evaluated the ILP kit for Chrissakes. i haven't even tried it  myself :)

“oh and i'd be happy to have an online debate with pavlina sometime - would be fun.”

i don't think Pavlina is a type of person who would go into a debate. um, just like Ken. have you seen Ken in a debate, lately? i mean a real intellectual debate, not just a dialogue with people who agree with him? i rest my case.

and oh. here's Pavlina's contact info.
http://www.stevepavlina.com/contact-info.htm

but i think you'll have more luck with Sam Harris :)

~C

oh. Tom had asked me a similar question on my other blog. i'll just link to it rather than repeat it here. it's too long. here's the link. i have a feeling that you won't agree. but i've said my peace. our main difference: i'm not a cursory reader of Pavlina's blog :)

~C