Humor, Truth, Outrage, and Misplaced Indignation

“Matthew where are you…”

Sorry dude… I came down with a fever over the weekend.  I find your arguments well stated.  I still think that any coherent discussion on this matter should include Pavlina's perspective/explanation.  Lacking that, your overall point on the inadequacies of (your definition of) New Age are still as valid as they've always been, IMO.

My only quarrel with this analytic attack on SP is that there seems to be a lack nuance–a lack of diversity in understanding–a lack of integral aperspectivalism in reasoning.  That is, it seems to be narrowly focused on one unhealthy aspect of his blog that may surface every now and again.  If I didn't know anyone who was pulling value from his blog on a regular basis, your wheelings and dealings in this matter probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for me.  However, my criticism of your writing is just a suspicion and I could be totally off-base here because, as I've mentioned before, I haven't actually studied Pavlina's blog.  I only know of it through various other blogger-friends and the value they've pulled from it, along with what I considered their integral analyses of his content.  So, in all fairness to you, I am a few steps removed, and this is mostly a sneaking suspicion.

Now… time to go read those 25 Pavlina blogs so I have some material to back up any of my assertions (after I do a little more work for the site ;)

~M

“Tell tale sign of the New Age worldview - I suddenly became the bad guy for my sarcastic humor, never mind the fact that the target of my to-the-point and entirely in context humor (his statements were worthy of either  crazy person or someone on drugs, or the well-tuned stylings of a comedic parody) had just authoritatively spouted some of the most spiritually offensive, callus ideas at a moment of horrific suffering.”

just because people find your sarcastic humor offensive, you look at it as “tell tale sign of the New Age worldview.” for example, a lot of the “integrally minded” folks scoff at Wilber's Wyatt Earpy episodes. so does that make them less integral?

for the record, i laughed at your joke. it's actually funny. but i didn't think it was appropriate at that time to get your point across, unless of course your job is like that of Bill Maher or Jon Stewart. but anyway. it's your humor and your style. so i respect that. but don't blame others for reacting differently because the meaning of your (our) communication is the response you (we) get.

“Lacking in any good counter-points to my analysis, several people chose to take me to task (no doubt to teach me a lesson in nice politeness!) for potentially offending Pavlina!”

your analysis is excellent as far as the integral model is concerned and as far as your interpretation of Pavlina. in my case, what i've questioned was the method how I-I/IN tossed out the criticism.

in any case, you can analyze Pavlina as much as you want. my approach is different. i'll engage him in a dialogue so i can form a more informed opinion of him. imho, i think that that is a more integral approach.

~C

Because of all this debate, I've been reading a bit of Pavlina's blog, and while I can't say that I can necessarily give a fully informed opinion (who can?), I do get the impression that he gives a fair amount of good “practical” advice, but when he gets into the more spiritual realms, that's where I start to find that I disagree with him quite a bit.  But anyway…

And just a quick comment on the Wyatt Earpy issue:

~C - a lot of the “integrally minded” folks scoff at Wilber's Wyatt Earpy episodes. so does that make them less integral?

Wasn't that pretty much the point of the post in the first place? If not necessarily to separate the integral from first-tier, at least to point out where people had some serious shadow issues preventing them from fully expressing their level of development? In fact, pretty much any time you have a strong reaction to something like that, isn't that pointing to shadow issues (if not also to altitude issues)?

Anyway, I agree that it's dangerous to label anyone as being “at” a certain level without somehow finding out if it's more a matter of altitude or of shadow. And dialoguing with the person directly may be one way to find that out, or at least to formulate a more informed “opinion”.

Just some thoughts off the cuff.

~Grey

Hey Julian,

I appreciate the “serious critic” reference. And, short on time in terms of reading the books you are recommending, I will simply say this:

First, I agree completely with your New Age analysis. It is a problem. However, it's also where MANY people are at in their development, and ranting about it (my read) or using sarcasm (your read) isn't likely to change that. So, then, what's the point? If the point was to get people to see the New Age in SP, I think it could have been done with more respect. Again, I know we differ on this.

That said, I think that sarcasm has its place. Despite what I may have communicated at this point via PM and the I-I pod, I actually use sarcasm; I just use it much less than I used to because I have found it to be divisive at times, and that just doesn't serve me or my conversational partner(s) very well, in terms of The Point.

But to demote concerns about Right Speech to “New Age” or “green” is extremely partial. That I will not budge on. It IS partial; NOT integral. Period. (borrowing your mode of agency, here, thank you very much!)

The biggest problem I had with the use of sarcasm to make your point in this case was the use of personal details from Steve's history. Through my predominant lens, that just doesn't seem appropriate. Pick apart his blog posts; fine! Deal on the level of ideas; great! Using such personal details, though, for the purpose of a “joke” just doesn't jive with my deeply held concept of Right Speech. It's unlikely to be helpful to anyone, outside of a momentary chuckle. And, in terms of the arguments du jour, this is the only disagreement that I hold (the point which you still haven't specifically addressed).

I shall read your recommended books as time permits.

Julian I regestered here just so I could post a few comments to the issues
that you are talking about. First of all I am not increadibly well versed as some
long term thinkers/anylizers that travel in these parts, but do have a fairly broad
perspective on most things and try to engage in looking at things from multiple
angles as best as I can and continue to inform myself.

I had been reading SP Blog for just a bit before the VA Tech killings from the
recomendation at Holons, while I could sense the other recomendations I
did quite get why his blogs was rated so “highly” in developement, so I went
to look. I know that the issue at hand now is not SP per say but the New-ageism
that he apears to exemplify.

My initial reading of the SP post about VA left me confused about what his
intentions were to soothe himself and his readership, to push more people
towards veganism or what. What the blog post felt like was that SP was using
the events of VA to push his agenda for Veganism, of course this could just
be the fallen vegtarian voice in me talking. I kept looking at the blog and
the repsonses on the forum one in particular stood out responding to a
criticism of his sanity SP responded that (I have to paraphrase here )
“if I had a nickle for every time someone called him crazy….oh wait I do ;)”.
That stoped me, in the face of someone questioning his life philosphy as heathy
he throws out jokingly that it makes him money, it all just seems a bit “off”.
In another response to criticism he sugest that a poster goole the 3-2-1 process,
isn’t that a Iintregal institute process from their kit unavailable in the public
domain?

I kept looking and listened to a podcast of his about “owning your dark side”
thinking that maybe he would have some insight into shadow work that I
am curious about, it was fairly empty and I was dissapointed. Enough about
SP sorry haven’t shared my bit on the dude to anyone so forgive me if you can.

C4c desire to dialog with SP to decide what is really up with him is nice but
seems that KW et all do fine in criticising other authors work not dialog. C4
had no problem criticizing your choice of words but feels free to use a phrase like
“creamed him like Ron Jeremy creamed his on-screen partners” else where
when it suits histhe flavor of his own needs. Sorry C4c I just don’t see how that
choice language much different.

One of the issues with multiple perspectives is that it apears that an author
can simply say that they were using that particular “voice” as an excuse
for unwise words without taking responisbilty for the words/actions. Noone
would accept if I puched someone in the face and said that I was just acting
from lower perspective and I understand that there are other perspecives.

Anyway Julian I think that this issue at this point is important, especialy for
someone such as myself who is trying to figure their way around how an
integral viewpoint interacts with life(and death).

Thanks to all who are participating.

OK, so here's where I own that, based on what others were saying in various Zaadz locations about your “attack” of SP, it seems I missed that energy tainting my read of your VA Tech / Pavlina post. I was reading your blog looking for what might be considered an attack, and I thought I had found it. The “personal details” I referred to:

- Steve was in jail when 19 years old.
- Steve has a history of mental illness (this is what my mind materialized out of your post; amazing what the mind can do when pre-loaded and in a hurry!)

It was those personal details about a specific person that I felt were inappropriate to use for the purpose of “waking people up”, whether those people are green (which you've said isn't your intent) or integrally-informed.

You said: “i am not ranting here against green, or even against regressive green/new age - i am ranting against misperceiving/misrepresenting all of that as integral and so failing to differentiate the powerful insights and perspectives of integral from the new age.”

Excellent!

You said: “(one important but side-difference is that integral has no problem with ranting, sarcasm and calling a spade a spade… whereas green and especially new age/regressive green/magenta HATES those things and wants everyone to play nice and honor all ideas as being equally valid - except of course that idea which is more valid than the one that says some ideas are plain BS!) ever hear of the “performative contradiction?”

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of a performative contradiction.

I have been known to rant myself, given provocation by what I view to be a real injustice in the world, relatively speaking. So, no, I don't see the ranting, per se, as a problem. Admittedly, though, it can cause me to bristle a bit, mostly because of the energy behind it. Nothing wrong with being bristled now and then. Again, it was what I had read as personal details that I initially had the issue with. So, I wasn't HATING your expression, it just caused the bristling which was overdone a bit by the preloading. It was also preloaded by some of your posts on other threads in which you came off as the beloved arrogant asshole, which seemed to be compromising your ability to actually communicate (versus make) your point. Thus the Right Speech flag-waving.

Since we're on the subject of Right Speech (finally!), and given your recent PM noting that I prefer polite speech, I want to clarify: I primarily prefer polite speech when engaging with people I don't know because:
 - I don't know what developmental stage they are at, and therefore have more of a challenge when it comes to “meeting them where they're at,” especially online.
- OR I haven't developed the trust with them to “push the edges,” so I don't
- AND I care deeply about people

When I am with friends, I drop f-bombs all the fucking time (to my wife's chagrin, sometimes) when discussing the horrid state the world is in regarding institutionalized religion and (separately) the treatment of queers by misguided (!) fundamentalists, the wonderful phenomenon of Bushco, etc.

Now I see why you resisted the call to engage in a conversation about Right Speech. I have obviously read your relevant blog post again, and I don't have as much of an issue now. What was a moderate issue is now a slight issue, in my read.

And I still care deeply about Right Speech (which, to be extra clear, doesn't mean Politically Correct).

Though I do still have green in me; I am labeling myself integral after all. Transcend and include.

I just watched the Maher video. It's fucking hilarious. And I love the Daily Show, too.

Thank you for elaborating.

For whatever it's worth, I didn't get, until now, that you purposely “push edges” in this forum, but not via in-person social and professional environments. I had read your home page. I had encountered a handful of your posts in some threads. And there seemed to be a profound disconnect: the walking wasn't matching the talking. So the “make it clear” didn't reach me, and I know it didn't reach several others.

I still do wonder whether the arrogant asshole approach misses some opportunities to effect change, though. And I say that to myself, too, because when I'm “ON” I can offend. And it doesn't serve my needs very often, personally, to offend.

Anyways, I'll get off my Right Speech High Horse in this thread now.

“C4  had no problem criticizing your choice of words but feels free to use a phrase like
“creamed him like Ron Jeremy creamed his on-screen partners” else where
when it suits histhe flavor of his own needs. Sorry C4c I just don’t see how that
choice language much different.”

LOL. here's the link :)

http://thezeroboss.com/2007/04/29/jon-stewart-confuses-ann-althouse-score-one-for-stewart/

if you read The Zero Boss blog, i mean the entire blog, which i do every day, that language is just appropriate there. even Jay would attest to that.

this is a classic example of taking something out of context. the difference is, we're not doing intellectual/philosophical dialogues there. and yes, i'm capable of sarcastic, nasty, vulgar, and sick humor, and more! i just pick the right place and right time to use it.

~C

Julian, it is good to see that your  monumentally, gloriously, divinely, big ego remains intact ;-) But seriously, a question for you: Do you see anything redeeming about your points about the New Age worldview as you present it? You say these seven points sound like they are half-true but “are actually just bad ideas,” which leads me to think that you think the New Age is a total crock with nothing redeeming about it. Yes or no?

Let me play devil's advocate and point out some possible “good news” to your New Age worldview points. Understand that I am in basic agreement with the gist of your critique, at least in terms of “extreme New Agism.” However, what we call the New Age is actually much larger and more diverse than the most popularized version that you are criticizing. And my view is that there are core, important truths to New Agism if we look a little bit beyond surfaces, and take a more flexible interpretation.

1) You create your reality 100% of the time anything else is a misperception of the higher truth.

To say that we create our reality “100%” is obviously ridiculous. But we certainly co-create our reality to some degree, no? Our thoughts impact our lives, yes?

2) Therefore there are no victims, any response to suffering that suggests victimhood is again a misperception of the higher truth.

Again, I think you are basically correct. But the silver lining here is that things look differently depending upon how–and from where–one sees them. I am not selling relativity, but including it within a larger framework. We must include context. What looks like victimhood from one level may look different from another level (or perspective).

My sense is that you tend to absolutize a kind of “integral context” so that everything is weighed and measured from this Julianic integral worldview. In other words, where is the flexibility? Where is the flow? Can you move out of your worldview and into another?

3) LIfe is a kind of spiritual school, everything that happens is a lesson from the universe.

Life is a “spiritual school” to some degree, and the universe certainly gives us feedback as to how we are doing. Certainly the New Age is overly narcissistic, so that “the universe will provide,” to the point that some believe the universe actually cares about them persoally. I agree with the gist of your critique about this, Julian. But again, these are partial truths, not “just bad ideas.” How can you claim to speak from an integral worldview (teal/turquoise) unless you integrate the healthy aspects of other worldviews (in this case, green, even if tinged by red)?

The New Age believe of “life as a spiritual school” is in many ways a patch on the meaninglessness of rational nihilism. It can be seen as a defense mechanism, as you say, but it can also be perceived as the beginnings of a deeper perspective whereby life is seen to have depths of meaning, literally infinite layers of perspectives.

4) There is no such thing as “reality” - everything is a perception, so if you just change your thinking/perception, you actually change reality.

Our experience of reality is at least partially determined by how we perceive it. Let me emphasize again: “at least partially.” I am not saying “totally” like the extreme New Age view, I am saying “at least partially.” Do you refute this?

5) Therefore the spiritual life is one dedicated to changing thoughts and perceptions so as to remain aware of the igher truth at all times, know you are never a victim, and ask yourself how you have created your current experience and/or what the universe is telling you…

Well, that is a start, no? A beginning to a kind of self-empowerment. But again, yes, the picture you paint is very lop-sided.

6) Ultimately everything we think of as suffering, chaos, death, loss is merely an illusion caused by attachment and clinging of the ego - the truth is pure light and love and bliss when we remember to let go into it…

Where is suffering, chaos, death, and loss when one is open and fully present? What about when one is fully present with their suffering? Doesn't that suffering change, from a contracted experience of resistance to a raw wound of beingness?

7) There is some kind of momentous paradigm shift emerging in which everyone will realize these truths and we will live together in a golden New Age.

Well, we do evolve–individually and collectively. So it is certainly possible that more and more people are going to attain the “New Age level.” But this is largely a case of misplaced concreteness, of literalization. Take 2012, for example, one of the hallowed New Age ideas. The more literally we take it the more our viewpoint becomes static; but if we take a more flexible interpretation, 2012 takes on a different meaning. It is a date that symbolizes the gradual–but in the larger scheme of things, very quick–transition from the old industrial mentality to the new planetary mentality, from the “Old World” to the “New Age.” In that sense, 2012–and the idea of a dawning New Age–is irrefutable. But obviously the New Age perspective is quite candy-coated and, as I said, lop-sided. But what I am trying to point out here is the lop-sidedness of your own take on the New Age, that you are  essentially taking the flip-side, which is also partial.

Now if you could only get past your monumentally, gloriously, divinely, big ego, you might be able to see this! ;-)

“ok tell you what - you give pavlina some pointers on the right time and place to be respectful about say, mass murder and other actual tragedies and when the best time is not to advise people to use dissociative metaphysics as a “spiritual” response to reality and i'll take a few from you on when the time and place to use my sarcastic humor….. whadda ya say?!”

LOL. well, you can tell him that yourself. it's easy as pie to sign up on his forum and overanalyze him there. a lot of his readers do. it's actually the right place to toss out your analysis of him. and there's a better chance that you'd illicit a response from him. whadda ya say?!

~C

@ jonny bardo: exactly. well put :) and i'm glad that you're blogging your heart out too. i think i've met you online way back before.

anyway, to sum it up: it's one thing to have a healthy built-in bullshit detector, it's another to have a HABS syndrome :)

~C

P.S. i'll post my Pavlina interview soon…

Hey Julian,
Read your post, will read everyones else eventually, watched Bill. Did Bill watch Stuart? Or is there some link between Steve and GWB? :)
Anyhow, my best friend has just been diagnosed with breast cancer, and I don’t think she manifested that herself, so I am going now to cheer her up. She is now meditating on her fear, since she can’t do anything about her condition physically (medical territory), she can do something about her mind’s habitual response to fear, but getting to know its form and watch it slowly dissolve. Death is the ultimate shadow. Fear is its brother. Running away or fighting is our human reaction to both. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to be touched by Genpo and Ken and all like minded zaadzsters that have allowed me to ‘see’ reality in all its forms. Dualistic and Absolute and how to attempt to work with them appropriately.
Be nice everyone, we are all petals on the same flower.
:)

Ah C4Chaos, I figured it out–you're the artist formerly known as Cool Mel…yeah, we met awhile back.

HABS Syndrome…LOL. I think most integralists and 20/30-something males have some degree of this syndrome, including yours truly. Let's just hope it doesn't become Integral Fascism!

Julian said: “i think your observation is accurate colin.”

Holy crap, Integralman! Julian agreed with me!

But then he differs: “i personally dont think it has much to do with right speech, just with effective communication”

Ah, see: My point about Right Speech IS exactly “effective communication.” Being an arrogant asshole is fine; I just don't expect it to effect change very often. And, you said previously that one of your intentions with the VA Tech/Pavlina post was to reach people “about to pop” from being rooted in New Age (green) to entering Integral. The thing is, the sarcasm in that post seems to me to be talking to those already at integral. So, all the integral folks get to have a little chuckle. Those you say you intend to reach are recoiled in reaction; thus unreachable. Thus, if your intent is to connect with the integralites in a moment of shared humor and frustration at the sheer stupidity of New Age folks, then congrats! Goal accomplished! However, if your goal is to reach those ready to pop, I think you missed the mark. To effect change, a person must be met where he or she is at. Pushing buttons and then saying: “Look! Told you! Your buttons are pushed! Now do some shadow work and come over to Our Side (second tier)!” is rarely going to work.  I have tried this approach myself, in person, and it has never worked. Therefore, I have taken to using different tactics, like using respectful communication to illustrate integral ideas, point out flaws in first tier ideas, etc.

And the entire reason I got involved in this dialog, from the start, was because you, by your recent showcase with I-I, are in a position to potentially effect change; you have a wider audience. And I think that we need to use more skillful means than punching first tier buttons and saying: “Dude! You're a fucking moron!” even if it's done with the intent of using sarcasm. That seems more ego-based than Higher Self-based, and it's unlikely to create the change we are seeking.

This is a great community dialog!

I agree with what you say Colin, with one slight difference (or addition). Not only is our communication ineffective when we are overly pushing buttons, and coming in “fists first,” but problems start right off the bat if we are coming from the perspective of trying to convert.

If an integral person really wants to communicate with a green person then they have to take a more green approach, which is from a sense of mutuality and equality. But if, as Julian so often does, one comes from a position of superiority, then no one wants to listen to that–I don't care if they are green, integral, mauve, or polka dot (and not wanting to listen to that is not automatically sign of greenness!).

In other words, there simply must be openness, always. If one party senses that the other is not open then communication will stall. I mean, why would one want to dialogue with a fundamentalist? Fundamentalists come in all stripes and colors, even integral.

Excellent point, jb! Thanks for fleshing that out.

Well, it's obviously not as simple as saying, “That person is “at” green (or whatever), so I need to communicate with him at a green level.” Don't forget about lines, too, not just levels. And a person can also be second tier in a given line (or more than one) but have shadow issues that prevent them from expressing that altitude of that line in certain situations. I think that's what Julian means when he says he's trying to push the right buttons for peope who are ready to “pop”, not that he's trying to get people that are solidly in green to suddenly leap into teal.  I mean, if they're that green, then they probably wouldn't be reading his blog in the first place.

But I suppose I could be wrong. ;-)

Jules,

I love your fire, man. While I agree whole-heartedly with both your analysis of the New Age and your general prescription for a healthy, 21st century spirituality, I would hate to see you fall into that whole “Litmus test” mentality when it comes to assessing your critics.

If I had to guess, I’d say shadow stuff plays the biggest role when two people at roughly the same “level” disagree passionately about something. For instance, while I’m with you on so many issues, I couldn’t disagree with you more about the Wyatt Earpy fiasco. Loved the biting humor, even the “suck me” bit. But that whole condescending Litmus Test thing afterward? You gotta be kidding me? How’d you fall for that, dude? :0)

Seriously, though, I can see the same sort of thing playing out here, between you and C4Chaos. I imagine you’re both using concepts like the PTF, MGM, Right Speech, and all that shit to dismiss each other’s point of view. I’m doing the same thing, I guess, in thinking C4 is wrong about Pavlina and you are wrong about Wyatt Earpy.

Of course, maybe my assumption that we’re all at roughly the same level is off [he says looking down :o) ]. I just have the sneaking suspicion that when we so-called “Integrally-informed” folks disagree, we’re too quick to see colors, relegate opposing points of view to lower levels, and otherwise reach for the first comforting concept to assuage the shadowy nausea that calls for our patient attention.

Okay. I’ve had enough. Now, all of you bow down to my superior intelligence!

–Bob

Grey, I actually mostly agree with you, I think. My point is that I don't think that VA Tech/Pavlina blog post was using skillful means to get a few select people to “pop.” It got many integralites to laugh. Also, there's a bit of arrogance in that attempt; many of us do it, though.

And clearly (though perhaps it's not so clear given that you commented on it), we're talking in generalities here. No one is fixed at “green” or “teal.” It's just useful terminology (only for us geeks that know it) to get an idea of what a person's center of gravity might be.

Love your comments about the Litmus Test, Bob.

Colin: we're talking in generalities here. No one is fixed at “green” or “teal.” It's just useful terminology (only for us geeks that know it) to get an idea of what a person's center of gravity might be.

OK, but when we're talking borderline and transitional cases or shadow issues like we are here, and not about addressing any particular center of gravity, talking in generalities really gets us nowhere. I mean, it supports each of our particular points of view to a certain extent, but does next to nothing, really, towards achieving meaningful, integral dialogue. I hear some people saying Julian shouldn't be addressing green the way he is and then Julian saying he isn't addressing the green center of gravity, but I don't see the “critics” really putting forward a truly AQAL argument that goes beyond generalities and gets into specific points as to how Julian might better achieve his goal (assuming improvement is even necessary). Mostly (but not entirely) I'm hearing, “Don't do this because the audience is this.”

At the end of the day, though, I think that a blog should just say whatever you want it to say in whatever way you want to say it, and then some people will resonate with it, others will think it's total crap, and some won't be sure one way or the other and might decide to give it some more thought (Julian's “poppers”). And you can either gear a given blog entry to a specific target or just put it out there and let Spirit take its course. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't room to criticize what a person writes in their blog. I just think that specific criticism should be backed by specific arguments, not generalizations.

Cheers,
Grey

Point heard. And I still agree. I think this is more a matter of elaboration than disagreement, in terms of my perspective of the issue at hand. Thanks for clarifying.

Update:
So, it’s acceptable to criticize a blog post criticizing a blog post! I think my argument is specific enough to make the point I was trying to make. And, at this point, I’m losing interest in attempting to make it any clearer because I’ve got other interests to attend to. Lastly, I think Julian actually heard me; whether he agrees or not is another issue!

Context,content and style seem to be in question. If I look at
SP talking about the secret he says that his content is aimed at his
audiences level and reflects the context of his blog. C4’s defends his
blog comments as appropriate because of the context regardless of the
content. Julian defends his style based on context of it being his blog and
his argument. Wilbur’s dick sucking content is defended as being contextually
appropriate. Not everyone is going to agree on the appropriate content and style
for a particular context.

I will apologize for bringing c4’s comments from another blog about something
completely unrelated and would just like to say that it was out of a genuine confusion
as to why that content and style was considered OK in that context yet he considered Julians style and content offensive in this context.

So this is my lack of understanding I don’t understand “who” gets to judge what is
appropriate content and style under what context without falling into the trap of
not being critical anyone.

Julian,

A few things, and I'll start with agreements -

a.  That one piece by Pavlina was silly, not thought out well, especially when Steve started his number thing.
b. New Age, as defined by you, is something we all disagree with.

Questions -

a. Are you saying that everyone's emotional reaction to VA Tech, who is highly developed, should be one of “deep feelings, what a tragedy!”? In this case, that an appropriate response to VA Tech wouldn't be, more of a calm noticing, and being with, rather than an outward/inward expression of grief?
b. Are you saying that ALL of Pavlina's stuff is New Age, as you define it?
c. Are you saying that New Age - as you define it - is an encompassing definition of…who?  All psychics?  All who use astrology?  (Having seen how much astrology is used by High Tibetan Llamas and advaitic indians, that clearly isn't the case).  Who meets your definition?

If your answer to the above questions is “NO”, then I don't disagree with this post.   But it isn't saying much other than -

a.  Steve Pavlina had a horrible post
b.  Any movement or person who has ALL of the following 7 critieria, and no other criteria, is New Age, and is immature.

Your trip from the particular - Steve Pavlina's one post - to the general, broad New Age indictment- is confusing and vague, as it applies to particular people, particular movements.

For example, Deepak Chopra - he partially fits/partially doesn't fit your 7 criteria.  That is also true of Pavlina, by the way.  All of his output does NOT fit your 7 critieria. 

So…is this only a post against the sentiments expressed in that ONE Steve Pavlina post? 

hi everyone,

as promised, here you go.

B-SCAN with Steve Pavlina

keep watching this tag too
http://coolmel.zaadz.com/blog/tags/b-scan+with+steve+pavlina

there, i did my part already.  so i'll take a break from this and focus on my other duties in life.

take care and stay lucid y'all!

~C

Ok folks, I think we need a ‘Seven Habits of Highly Effected Greens’, any suggestions? A little reworking of Julians Seven? I will do it. I will.

The appropriate next steps up
Dummies guide to Turquoise,
followed by
How to live without your Ego
and lastly
How to live with your Ego .

Life then gets very ultra-clear but exceedingly boring with the as-yet-unpublished book:

How to speak to all the personality types nicely, at different stages of development, without projection, from your own level/line/personality type, and still be able to decide when to be arrogant (name your personal characteristic) without apology.
Alternatively titled The 10,000 dharmas.

Who could possibly do all this Right Speech? Stand up all Jungian Analysts! Hmm, not many here. And they wouldnt stand up anyway, theyre wise to their own Psyche. Projection of shadow can only be diminished, never eradicated. Are we all aware of our glass house? We need THIS community of window washers!

As managers are trained - stick to the issue not the outrage. There is reason for that. Outrage is a pointer to the emotional state of the person, we can ‘derive’ either our own projection which will suit our shadow (eg. ‘That SOB has no respect for me’ - ’ I am not respected’ - ’ I am worthless’ - shadow) - or we can see it as a pattern of behaviour that we can address as an adjunct to the persons development (I wonder why this guy is mad and I will try figure it out) - Or that they are outraged; without judging the outrage. But that’s after the reading the Dummies book…

Now I want to say something about the C4Chaos’s Steve Pavlina Interview:

Let me start with Steve’s first statement:

“My basic philosophy is that life is what we choose to make of it. This is a personal choice with no inherently right or wrong answers. That personal choice is, ‘What kind of life do I wish to experience?”

Ok my spidey sense is on alert. I thought the maxim was supposed to be ‘Know thyself’. Not make thyself into something. Small point.

And he says a lot of nice useful things, AND maybe his supporters were right, maybe I judged the guy too harshly maybe I, wait it was Julian, Julian said all those things, the bastard, thats the last time I listen to that guy! … then Steve farts in his spacesuit …

‘To pass through the dualistic experience of spirituality, you must eventually recognize that the physical world is a projection of the non-physical. There is no physical universe without consciousness’

Now then. An integral higher-self commentary on that is pretty straightforward. (Forget the Fart bit ok).

Hands up who has done Big Mind? OK its part of the ILP folks, get busy, will change your life, promise! Anyhow here goes:

Finding your way to the absolute and back; Or Mountain, no mountain, Mountain.

Step 1:. Small Mind - Relative - Dualistic - Ego - Suffering
Step 2: Big Mind - Absolute - Non-Dualistic - No Ego - No Suffering
Step 3: Unique Self - use 1 and 2 as appropriate - Flow - Suffering and No Suffering

Steve is, as I have said before, evolving. He hasn’t yet worked out the 3rd step, he is stuck in the absolute (Thought is Reality). Hope he visits a Zen Master soon, then his followers will have the benefit of a grounded expression of compassion, not the Non-Egoic view.

Oh yeah, and my friend with the breast cancer want’s to smack the guy. She’s red, what can I say?

I was being NICE about Steve… he is TRYING. In both senses.

Thanks for the honesty.  For what's it's worth, your generalizations are just that -  generalizations.

a.  Ungrounded in the facts of each particular movement.
b.  Refusing to differentiate one movement or output, from another. 
c.  Summary dismissals without an honest accounting of all the facts.

Now, again, I do agree with you, over 90%.  But there is more there there than “is dreamt of in your philosophy”, and your “banal” grouping, simply doesn't accord with the facts.  There are differences that make a difference, and you paper over those.

So let's agree to disagree on that 10%!

dang, where are the women in these dialogues?

Lucidity - there is an answer to your question, but I can't post it!  I like men honest ;o)

I stumbled across this thread while doing a search for another one.  I was fucking addicted and couldn't stop reading - there went half the afternoon. Absolutely hands down one of the best dialogues on Zaadz - even if it's 2 months old.  Now - what was I originally looking for? Shit …