Archive for December, 2006

Ka – and integral arts

Sunday, December 31st, 2006

Just saw a documentary on the production of the Cirque du Soleil’s new show in Las Vegas called Ka! I was astounded. If there is an integral art form it is one that combines multiple disciplines. Ka! is a fine example. It incorporates all the usual cirque material, acrobatics, costume, music, etc but goes even further to incorporate martial artists. But what truly astounded me was the technical design and innovation. To begin with they built an entirely new type of stage which features a platform on a massive hydraulic system. This stage is able to both tilt and rotate in three dimensions. It begins as a normal horizontal stage by then lifts, rotates and tilts to become a wall over an abyss. The acrobats suspension systems are motorised and hand-controlled. The concept was to defy gravity and this has been accomplished with technical savvy. The staging also involved writing a new computer program for some very sophisticated projection effects. True to its integral nature technicians from several disciplines were employed, including rock concert staging. The computer program maps the rotating stage exactly and has a real-time camera feed back system. This allows an effect of the acrobats appearing to walk on water and causing ripples. The camera reads where the actor is and how they move so that as they touch the platform circular waves are projected. The stage lighting incorporated film and theatre lighting. The sound design was also startling. There were thousands of speakers, including stereo speakers in each seat. This meant that the sound designer could move sound throughout the 360 degree space of the specially designed theatre.

Wow!

Sex is a skill that must be taught

Saturday, December 30th, 2006

Okay, so here’s where I’m at today. I was up late so my body clock is all over the place. I’ve been deep into writing my novel but I’ve reached a kind of writer’s block, well really a period of overview and reassessment. The novel is about sexual radicalism and the conflict between Judeo-Christian values and competing moral narratives (pagan, tantric and rationalist). I suppose what it’s really arguing for is moral pluralism – which should not be confused with moral relativism. I’m personally sick of Judeo-Christian moral conservatives demanding that their moral order be imposed as a universal moral absolute. Most of it is irrational rubbish. Why shouldn’t homosexuals get married? Who cares if the Bible says it is wrong? Who cares what the tribal beliefs of ancient Semites were, are they the proper basis for modern society?

I’m also sick of the sexual ignorance of the Judeo-Christian tradition. They know nothing and what they do know is wrong. They are idiots – the insane who think they should run the asylum.

Sex is a skill that must be taught. Many adults just bumble through their sex lives. Most have meat and two vegetables sex because they have never been taught to cook. Why do we think sex should happen by happy accident? How many men reading this have had a multiple orgasm? A full body orgasm? An orgasm without ejaculation? How many men know when their partner has had an orgasm? How many women have an orgasm during sex or have more than one, say a before, during and after? How come some men can be fooled by a fake orgasm, can’t you tell the difference?

Okay, so what’s this got to do with integral anything? Doh! Sex is a major component of life and has to be integrated into any theory for that theory to be truly called integral. And I’m not just talking about some kind of sanitized and spiritualized sex. That smells of an ascender bias. I’m talking full spectrum from anal orgasm to subtle and higher states of bliss.

The Judeo-Christian dominance of this area has created deep patterns of ignorance. There is no language with which to discuss the extraordinarily complex palette. Sex is everywhere in many forms. It’s in music, in dance, in art, in sport, in language, in food, in everything. Yet our language and conceptual world lacks the subtlty and complexity. Sex is really about bliss. The bliss of smelling a flower, of watching a sunset, of seeing your partner lose consciousness as the bliss of orgasm takes over, of watching him or her lying there afterwards covered in sweat, sighing with the after shocks of a deep orgasm.

The Cosmos exploded in orgasmic bliss.

But why would we be expected to just know this? To become good at anything we are taught by people who know more than we do. It is the duty of adults to teach children what they know and to provide as much educational opportunity as possible. If the child shows talent in music, dance, gymnastics, sport, maths, science, art, etc, we do not hesitate to guide them to be the best they can be. But when it comes to sex – oooops – forget it (it’s outrageous to think a child could have a talent for sex).

Sex is only for procreation and all that is required is ejaculation. Same applies to food. It’s only about nourishment, provided you’ve got all the vitamins and proteins who cares how it tastes. Oh yeah – everyone. So if we can train to be a gourmet cook why can’t we train to be a sexual gourmet? Why aren’t we told what is possible and just how expansive the palette is?

Of course there are ‘issues’. Realistically how many parents can guide their child’s sexual development in a way that celebrates their sexuality? How many fathers can model positive and celebratory male sexuality for their sons and daughters? How many fathers can affirm and support their daughters emerging sexuality without freaking out (Daddy, am I masturbating the right way?)? As we know all men have no control and can’t be trusted to be sensitive – why? Oh yeah, because they haven’t been taught how to.

Sex is over-rated – meaning you don’t know how to do it and I have no imagination. If you are having boring sex I can assure you that others are having great sex. Why? Because they’ve learnt how to and have put some effort into learning. No one is a natural at sex. No one is a natural at maths either. If a child is kept hidden from people and never taught to speak past a certain age they loose the capacity to speak at all.

And here’s the thing, it turns out sex is taught, but boy, what a confused messy curriculum. Mostly we are taught that sex is somehow bad and not to talk about it. In the end most people settle for a lot less than is possible because they don’t know any different (because no one ever talked about it).

Little Sarah runs in from the backyard excited, ‘mum, I did my first somersault on the trampoline…mum, I held my breath for a minute…I jumped three feet in long jump…I did one hundred skips in row…I had an orgasm (hmmm, best not mention that dear, we can celebrate every other achievement but that one).

The great cultures recognized the erotic as an important aspect of culture. Many developed a sophisticated language and body of work. It could not be suppressed in the West but it was always in conflict. Pornography is the result – crudity and banality. In a repressive erotic culture the erotic gets pushed underground where it becomes part of black market and people who neither care nor know about quality are in control. I have nothing against raunch and hardcore – in its place as part of a much larger palette but when we have such a crude palette it’s what we get.

Okay – I’ve run out of steam….I’ll probably think of something after I shut the computer down.

Finally, seems to me that integralists are compelled to support my argument coz it’s logical and brilliant (and free of hubris) :)

Btw, how do you know when a child is developmentally ready to know about the details of sex? When they ask. Of course most children are taught early not to ask, ever.

Moral absolutes and postconventional moral reasoning

Saturday, December 30th, 2006

Thinking further about some of the responses to the abuse thread has me thinking that in the area of sexual morality many people fall back to a conventional moral reasoning position, so I thought I’d put a dilemma to you all. It’s based on an actual case that happened in Australia in the late seventies that got a fair amount of publicity (not all of it negative). I still remember it because I thought that it was a case that was not subject to a clear answer.

The case was this. A widowed father raised his two daughters. He did not set clear boundaries and as they grew older the three of them became sexually initimate eventuating in consensual intercourse. What’s interesting about the case is that one daughter reported the case but only after she had fallen in love with a devout Christian (which the father had not tried to stop). She told him of her relationship with her father and he convinced her it was wrong and that she had to report him. She had no plans to report the father until she was persuaded by the boyfriend – she had not considered it wrong until then. When she told her older sister the sister (they were 16 and 17 at the time) was horrified that she would betray her father. Despite her sister’s objection she proceeded and the father was eventually jailed. I first heard of this story through an interview with the older sister who defended her father and attacked her younger sister. The older sister said that their father was always loving and that both her her sister and herself enjoyed and had wanted the experiences. She also said that if any of them had said no then their father would have stopped. She said both of them sometimes initiated contact. In other words she said there was no coercion, rather he seems to have indulged their curiosity and allowed it to go too far. The older sister emphasised that their father was always kind and loving. She also said that her sister had enjoyed it too and could have said no at anytime. She was angry at her younger sister for being a hypocrit and for betraying her father – and for being persuaded by a conservative moralist to report him.

It was a tragic situation. The older sister was very bitter because her younger sister had taken action to put their father in jail. This drove a wedge between the sisters – in effect also punishing the older sister who was traumatized by the investigation, court case and the jailing of her father.

The question is this – what would have happened if the younger sister had not been convinced she had sinned by a moral conservative and had not reported her father? The older sister had said that both she and her sister had boyfriends and as a result the sexual contact with their father was declining with his blessing. It may have happened that all would have moved on quite happily.

What happened was clearly against the law and from an absolutist position the father should have been punished. But he was not the only one punished. The older sister now hated her younger sister and it drove a wedge into what had apparently been an otherwise loving family dynamic. To the older sister she had been punished because her father was taken from her and in her view it was actually her sister who had done the wrong thing by betraying them all. She was especially angry at the Christian boyfriend who she believed had brainwashed her sister (she was deeply in love with him and was therefore under his influence – and I should add that even without the sex this happens reasonably often where a family member becomes persuaded by an outside belief system and leaves the family culture, causing considerable anxiety and recrimination).

So, should the younger sister have proceeded against her older sister’s wishes? Should she have considered the impact on her older sister? Was the boyfriend right to impose his absolutist values on a more nuanced moral situation? As far as I’m concerned the father was a fool but should he have been jailed or should the family have been counselled so that all parties could learn from the experience and keep the family intact? Is jail always the best answer in such cases? Should children in such situations be removed from the family? What is the impact of the removal on the child? Who is being served by jailing the father – him, his daughters, society or is jailing really about satisfying the moralist’s personal outrage?

How might a postconventional thinker resolve the conflict caused by everyone’s behaviour?

I don’t know how the situation eventually played out. I think the father was jailed for two years (he pleaded guilty). Did the older sister change her mind and forgive the younger sister? Did the younger sister change her mind and regret her actions or did she stay loyal to her boyfriend and marry him? What if she broke up with the boyfriend and then realised what she had done to her family when she was no longer under his influence? It can definitely be argued that as children they could not have understood the consequences of their actions but neither can children who are pressured to give evidence against a parent understand the consequences of doing so. (Don’t prosecutors trick children into testifying? If they fully understood what would happen to their parents and to them would they testify? Isn’t it hypocritical?) Did the younger sister fully understand what she was doing? Did the father forgive the younger sister (as I recall he bore no animosity toward her)? Did the family reach a reconciliation and forgiveness?

Abuse of enlightenment? Enlightened abuse?

Tuesday, December 26th, 2006

It seems a new thread has emerged from an old one so I copied and pasted here. You know my thoughts on enlighenment are “bah humbug” so I’ll stay out of this one. 

  • Andy Smith Says:
    “I’m not saying people shouldn’t study and discuss his works, but just that (for me at least, others may feel differently!) it is limiting if that is the only thing that is studied, since he is not an Enlightened being. It means that one remains stuck in the realm of the relative intellect.”

    And you are saying that Aurobindo was an enlightened being, that you know this for certain? Or that you know that anyone discussed in this forum is/was enlightened?

  • alan kazlev Says:
    Andy asked

    And you are saying that Aurobindo was an enlightened being, that you know this for certain?

    Yes. And The Mother too

    This is evident from

    o The authoritory with which and about which they wrote or spoke (KW in contrast always uses second hand sources when discussing these matters, so do I. However this argument in itself is not persuasive because an Intermediate Zone guru also speaks with authority and direct experience)
    o The anecdotes of those who knew them
    o Most importantly, and in addition to the above two points, there has not been a single case of them abusing their position. This is in contrats to the “intermediate zone” gurus who have only partial enlightenment, but speak witha uthority and have dedicated followers whose lives were transformed. But the IZ guru will almost always in some way absue their position. The authentic and totally enlightened being never will. (If they ever do, they aren’t totally enlightened). This si one reason why I have become so interested in the subject of abyusive and ambiguous gurus of late, it is teh real acid test concerning who is truly genuine and who not.

    Or that you know that anyone discussed in this forum is/was enlightened?

    Sri Ramana, although apart from me no-one here has discussed him here (or if they have, sorry, hard leeping track of everything lol!). For the same three reasons as given re S.A. Marko has also mentioned A.H. Almaas; I don’t know enough about him, but if he passes the above three points then I would concede he is too.

    I would add a fourth agument in both cases, but this is not much use for you as it is meant only for me: To me they each have an authentic presence about them (however I concede I have in the past been fooled by intermediate zone gurus, that is why i say my intimations on this matter should not be taken as authoritative). Ultimately you yourself in your innermost being have to decide who is authentic, and even then be careful not to be sidetracked by rationalisations or intermediate zone glamour.

    I understand Andy that these arguments are not persuasive to the external rational mind. But you yourself have acknowledged there are states of consciousness beyond that.

  • ray harris Says:
    I know this is getting off track but in reading Alan’s reply I wondered if ‘abusing’ their position was ever and objective thing. I’ve been researching child abuse for my novel and one thing is clear, abuse is culturally conditioned. That is, what is considered abuse in one culture is not considered abuse in another. It reminds me of the fuss over swami Muktananda, specifically the claim that he sexually abused young girls. Now as far as I’m aware Muktananda did have sex with female disciples but there are a number of inconsistancies and cultural clashes. The first inconsistancy is that some female disciples have come forward to say that they consented and that they regarded the experience as spiritually powerful, but others have come forward to say they regretted the experience. The next problem, and the one germane to my point, is that the youngest ‘victim’ was supposed to be 14, which by Western standards is ‘child’ abuse but by traditional Indian standards is not, particularly considering that in the widespread devadasi system the devadasi was initiated by a priest (or guru) just before or after her first period. I should also add that the worst account I had read of Muktananda’s abuse was contained in a book by a fundamentalist Christian convert who after conversion regarded her Hindu experiences as the time she had been tempted by Satan.

    So, by what standards do we define abuse? Given for instance, that in Autobiography of a Yogi the famous Babaji asks a disciple to jump off a cliff and kill himself, whereby he is bought back to life? This story being to illustrate the degree of surrender required from a true disciple.

  • alan kazlev Says:
    Hi Ray

    You’ve probably seen this

    * Caldwell, Sarah The Heart of the Secret: A Personal and Scholarly Encounter with Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga. (pdf)

    Apparently Muktananda had one teaching for his outer circle, which was celibate etc, another (based on Kaula Tantra) for his inner circle, and Cauldwell argues that his sexual activities have to be seen in this light.

    But it is one thing to do something like this as part of a traditional culture in which both partners are willing and knowledgable participants; in Muktanada’s case this wasn’t so. And while some girls thought it was a lark, others were freaked out by Muktananda’s advances. Add to that the conspiracy of silence, threats of violence, Muktanada’s temper, etc etc. See this account and this account.

    The thing is, I really like Muktananda, and always have. I get a really nice vibe from him. I’m sure he had many wonderful virtues. But the thing is, he clearly wasn’t an enlightened being. I class him as an “intermediate zone guru”, in which the explerience of enlightenment is combined with the persistence of lower and self-seeking tendencies.

  • Blurring Fact and Fiction: Telling Stories about I-I

    Tuesday, December 19th, 2006

    Thanks to Integral Options for directing me to this link:  

    http://pods.zaadz.com/ii/discussions/view/89671

    From Ignorance to a larger Integral Wholeness, Power, and Truth

    Monday, December 18th, 2006

    The following passage by Sri Aurobindo (from The Life Divine Book 2, ch.19 “Out Of the Sevenfold Ignorance to the Sevenfold Knowledge”, was posted by Tusar on his Savitri Era Open Forum blog.  It may be pertinent to the current discussion of what the Integral Movement stands for and what its goals are.  Please note that I have added the italics to highlight what I consider points of relevance to the present discussion; they aren’t in the original.

    This evolution, this process of heightening and widening and integralisation, is in its nature a growth and an ascent out of the sevenfold ignorance into the integral knowledge. The crux of that ignorance is the constitutional; it resolves itself into a manifold ignorance of the true character of our becoming, an unawareness of our total self, of which the key is a limitation by the plane we inhabit and by the present predominant principle of our nature. The plane we inhabit is the plane of Matter; the present predominant principle in our nature is the mental intelligence with the sense-mind, which depends upon Matter, as its support and pedestal. As a consequence, the preoccupation of the mental intelligence and its powers with the material existence as it is shown to it through the senses, and with life as it has been formulated in a compromise between life and matter, is a special stamp of the constitutional Ignorance. This natural materialism or materialised vitalism, this clamping of ourselves to our beginnings, is a form of self-restriction narrowing the scope of our existence which is very insistent on the human being. It is a first necessity of his physical existence, but is afterwards forged by a primal ignorance into a chain that hampers his every step upwards: the attempt to grow out of this limitation of the wholeness, power and truth of the spirit by the materialised mental intelligence and out of this subjection of the soul to material Nature is the first step towards a real progress of our humanity.

    Wilberians and postmodernists may take exception to the metaphysical language. In that case you need only replace the words used here with terms you feel more appropriate, e.g. you can replace “material plane” with “gross realm”, it amounts to the same thing.

    The concept of the  “materialised mental intelligence” and the self-limitation of being though infatuation with the mental sphere and the material world is however an important one.  Elsewhere (e.g. in Letters on Yoga) Sri Aurobindo refers to this as the “physical mind”.  It is the sceptical intellect that can only accept what is seen and proven empirically, and has difficulty with or rejects concepts pertaining to larger realities.  It is necessary to overcome this limited outlook, and it doesn’t matter whether it is done intellectually through being receptive to esoteric writings and concepts, intuitively through contemplation of the Self and development of insight, dialectically through Nagarjuna or Derrida, yogically through meditation or devotional aspiration (bhakti), or integrally through a heightening or widening of the entire being, because all these practices have a role to play.

    As the quoted passage shows, at issue is growing and evolving beyond self-imposed boundaries to a greater knowledge, power, and wholeness.  In this paragraph, Sri Aurobindo incorporates and integrates the mystic and the evolutionary, the traditional yogas and the modern conception of progress.

    What does the Integral Movement represent?

    Friday, December 15th, 2006

    Joe has made the valid comment that my wiki write-up covers different Integral schools of thought, but there should also be a separate write-up on ”Integral as a movement”.  i.e. what does Integral mean as a movement with an overall orienattion, praxis etc

    I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread to explore this theme.

    Perhaps all the regular contributors here, and also occaisonal visitors to thsi forum, could post their comments on how they would define the Integral movement, not just in theory, but in practice as well.

    Overall Altitude?

    Friday, December 15th, 2006

    Altitude is an important idea in integral theory and practice, and one that causes quite a bit of heated debate. In IS Ken uses consciousness per se (CPS) and an overall marker of one’s general altitude. This seems to replace the prior notion of a center of gravity around one’s self-system, and this in turn is led by cognitive development which is necessary but not sufficient for development in other lines. I contend that this new notion of altitude is not only inaccurate but leads to a false sense of superiority oever others because they “just can’t understand.”

    Now I certainly agree that the last statement is true when we take specific levels in specific lines like cognitive development. If one were to say to a 2-year old, when they ask why daddy put his penis in mommy’s mouth and daddy says: “You can’t understand yet. One day, when you’re big enough…” But as to whether there is some “spiritual” integration of all the lines via “consciousness” that can only be developed through “meditation” is highly questionable and hardly “proven” or agreed upon even among so-called spiritual experts. And it when the latter occurs, I think, that we start to get into a dysfunctional hierarchy (or holarchy, if you prefer) of dominance of “my view is better than yours.” Especially when that view is a totalizing view of everything, so that it is “absolutely” better than yours in all contexts because it is “spiritual.”

    Ebuddha is exploring a spiritual intelligence quotient in his blog. And if we define spiritual by one’s meditative abilities I can even agree that one can measure altitude in that line. But is it the definitive line by which all others should be measured. Or the definitive altitude to describe someone overall? I would think not according to IS, because Ken made clear that one can have permanent nondual awareness (the highest “spiritual” level) and still not have a very high cognitive capacity. And it would seem that CPS is what develops to nondual awareness via meditatiion, so this CPS doesn’t really seem apt at functioning as a marker of overall development.

    But there are such prejudicial overtones around “spiritual” and spiritual attainment as an absolute over every other relative attainment, like cognitive development. And this seems in opposition to the notion that cognition is necessary but not sufficient to development in all the other lines. Apparently cognitiion is not necessary to development in the “spiritual” line. And of course this is usually explained away as the absolute-relative dichotomy, the “two truths.” But if the two truths are reconciled or integrated in nondual awareness, yet nondual awareness has apparently nothing to do with cognitive development, and the latter is the necessary (but not sufficient) marker for all other relative lines, then what kind of absolute is being integrated with what kind of relative here? Or are they really being integrated at all with this species of specious argument?

    Yeah yeah, I know, I can only “experience” the answer in satori. I’ve had the experience and it’s not the answer. Satori is an experience of altitude in a particular line, not the answer to it all.

    The Integral movement – new page at Integral Wiki

    Wednesday, December 13th, 2006

    Everyone – here’s a quick page I wrote at Integral Wiki

    http://integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Integral_movement

    Basically building on my blog post “Diversity of the Integral Movement”.  Feel free to edit this wiki page!  If your name isn’t there and feel that it should be, please add it!  If it’s tyhere but in the wrong category, move it accordingly.  If there should be mnore categories, add more.  If less, merge the ones that are already there.

    After all, it’s our wiki!

    Integral Wiki

    Saturday, December 9th, 2006

    Not sure how many people here know about the Integral Wiki, but it’s a worthy project worth contributing to:

    http://integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page

    ÂÂ