Open Integral

Robb responded to the “Reinvention of I-I” thread, an encouraging sign:

Robb Smith Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Edward, I tried to reply on the Yahoo discussion board but didn’t have access and decided to reply here. I have reactions to what’s being discussed on several levels, so I’ll try to do justice to the thread accordingly. First, I wouldn’t deny anything you’ve said about Integral Institute. In observing the organizational mechanisms of Integral Institute since my tenure started I think I understand why various folks in the community have had a bad experience with the tone and behavior of Integral Institute over the preceding several years. I will offer, however, that if anyone thinks this is bad, take a look at any other business startup or turnaround: they all suffer from characteristics not dissimilar to the ones you describe. This is not an excuse, but it does serve as a reason that helps provide a backdrop for the discussion. I have outlined as much publicly on several occasions (and you can find more about what I’ve found in a presentation I published globally on my blog). Basically I agree with many of your criticisms and see it as our job to evidence a different tack with our behavior, and not just more promises. This is why we’ve kept largely quiet about many of the things we’re doing this year, up until a few weeks ago.

Second, the reason we’re starting an internet portal at IntegralLife.com is to try to build a robust community wherein anyone who is interested in integral discussion, intention and content can act and contribute in a central community of like-minded folks. Where will this go? I don’t know – our job is to build a platform and tools for the emergence, not to definitively sculpt how it grows.

Third, I disagree with Bert’s assessment of the questions we’re asking ourselves right now. The question I ask myself every morning, and right before bed, is how can I best serve the members of our community? The answers change depending on the situation, but I am not wondering if integral is a fringe movement. I don’t know what that means. I do, however, believe that Integral Life’s strategy of communicating integral in lay terms and without academic prejudice to one flavor of integral or another is key to its true functional worth in solving real suffering. I agree with you entirely in this. This is what motivates me.

Fourth, if anyone has valid academic criticisms of integral as a philosophical commitment I encourage them to air them clearly, cogently and respectfully through either our academic journal or through any of the others operating. I personally find the field fascinating and think that healthy and intelligent discourse is the key to moving the ball forward. This is another reason we are leading the way with the production of the first broad portal for the worldspace, the first academic integral conference in 2008, and widening the purview of our academic journal to consider well-considered criticisms of prevailing positions.

Finally, as always, I am available by phone (303-545-5445) or email (rsmith@integrallife.com) if anyone, anywhere, has anything they want to suggest about how Integral Institute or Integral Life is operating. I respond to blogs all over the world and publish my own (when I have time!) but the invitation is officially wide open for people to become involved with these organizations. As all organizations do we have a past with mixed results, but as far as I know we’re also the only organization in the integral space that is reaching out to over a million people in the next 6 months to broaden the loving, perspective-taking approach that integral can offer to so many of the world’s most pressing problems. I think we take our responsibility very seriously, and I always love feedback on how we can improve.

In love and service,
Robb Smith
CEO, Integral Institute
& Integral Life

I attended a meeting of the Santa Rosa Integral Salon (SRIS) this part Wednesday, largely due to Bert Parlee being the guest speaker. Bert is the Chief of Staff at I-I. Within his talk Bert mentioned that I-I is going through another reinvention process. It is trying to understand why it is perceived as on the fringes and not generally accepted, and to change that to reach a wider audience. In an attempt to help with that goal I started a thread in the SRIS Yahoo group called “The not so frothy fringe.” After a handful of responses I wrote the following. One can view the entire thread here.

I’ll speak from the 1st person here, why I have mostly dropped out of the I-I version of reality. Partly by what just happened in this thread–it is representative of this “brand” as a whole. It seems that is denies that there is a problem to begin with and will seek evidence to prove itself right and dismiss any evidence to the contrary. It will also reduce or denigrate the opponent, or if in a more “compassionate” mood, just say they can’t understand such lofty ideals or concepts. Or just ignore them. It comes from a place of superior hubris that turns its nose up on the masses; it’s more of a “turquoise club” (as Bruce said) rather that a bodhisattva vow. And the funny thing is, most in the club aren’t even close to “turquoise” (metasystemic or above) cognition. Often quite the contrary.

Another problem is that this brand also often frames its critique of so-called pluralism in politically conservative language, thereby implicity reinforcing that worldview. On the other hand, the use of such specialized language for “proselyting,” like AQAL, levels, lines, etc. is rather off-putting and smackes of cultish inbreeding. Certainly one way to avoid this is to speak the language of your audience. One doesn’t have to even mention AQAL to get those ideas across. But to hang on to the specialized language in any discourse is to defeat the purpose of that discourse, if that purpose has anything to do with getting through to someone instead of getting over on them.

Or to “sell” them something. Much of the communication I received from I-I (when I was still a member) was to buy this or that service or product. And again, in the traditional language and methodology of a conservative ad campaign. I’d think I-I come up with an innovative way to mutually exchange products and services that doesn’t just reinforce a capitalistic frame. Yes, it’s AQAL to re-invent even modes of exchange representative of higher levels in the exterior quadrants. One might take some lessons from P2P if they weren’t so busy denigrating it as
green (when it isn’t). And no, to suggest such innovations is not just a green reaction of anti-capitalism. Yes one has to live within a dominant monetary economy but can at the same time take steps to build another model of mutual exchange.

Observe your own personal reaction to what I’ve said. Might you want to make me out to be a MGM? (It wouldn’t be the first or last time.) It’s so convenient to dismiss one who disagrees, or brings problems to light, as someone who just doesn’t get it and doesn’t know what they’re saying. This is probably one of the strongest and most valid criticisms of the the Wyatt Earp affair. And it didn’t just put off the “dumb” or the green; it put off many inside of I-I and the integral movement generally. (Hence repeated, mass exoduses, I among them.) And instead of taking responsibility for such outrageous behavior they blamed everyone else, saying it was only a test and if you didn’t pass you were projecting. If you buy that one then I can see that when the Kook-Aid is passed out you’ll readily drink from the cup.

From Frank Visser’s Wilber Watch blog

“I was notified of the fact that AQAL Journal, the long awaited “academic” publication on matters integral, has finally been released. At this moment, the available issues (all from 2006, nrs. 1-4), are available only to subscribers (nrs. 1-2) and members (nrs. 3-4) of the Integral Institute.

Volumes 1 and 2 have over 400 pages, volumes 3 and 4 are about half their size, and the expected size of future volumes is expected to be around 100-200 pages. It will be a quarterly, online publication. Apparently, the plan to come up with a, much more expensive, print version of the journal, to be distributed to libraries, has been abandoned. Curiously, the copyright date is set to 2005.”

I found it strange that this new journal, originally intended for libraries and from the thumbnails on their website is nicely professional looking, is available only to subscribers and members of the Integral Institute! This seems to indicate that either

• It’s a very fat and ostentatious newsletter
• It’s part of the sale pitch – sign up and pay your monthly dues to join I-I and you will receive, free (that’s right, free) our amazing new journal
• It’s a sign of growing cultism and elitism (all those lower tier people that are not a part of our special turquoise sanctuary wouldn’t be able to understand this)
• It’s a sign of increasing siege mentality (those dastardly critics would only distort and misinterpret what we’re saying)
• Some other explanation
• Some or all of the above

I looked at their webpage and it is all very nice looking, although the first sentence is strange – “AQAL Journal is a quarterly peer-reviewed, academic journal from Integral Institute”.  But since when has Wilberian theory ever been “peer-reviewed”? Mainstream academia still dismisses Wilber as just another New Age crank (this despite his distancing himself from “metaphysics”). The only peer review of Wilberism that I know is Frank’s Integral World website, and we all know what Ken thinks of that?

So is by “peer-review” is meant reviewed by others within the tiny I-I membership? That’s not the way I understand how academia works!

All of which supports my thesis that despite best intentions, good will, and enormous potential at the start, the Wilberian Integral movement is sliding down the slippery slope to religionism and, ultimately, cultism. A larger integral movement, or integral paradigm, may or may not be viable (however my own research shows that there is no integral movement, as opposed to a Wilberian Integral movement). The future will show how things turn out.

Reading the last entry on the cult risk of I-I prompts me to start recounting my experience with Ken, Don Beck and I-I. It’s a dismal, winter’s day – which is my excuse for writing two entries in a day (I was planning to scan transparancies from my DTE days but the scanner is stuffed).

My intro to Ken on a personal level came through Frank Visser’s site. I had written a critique of Peter Collins’ circular logic theory. Ken emailed me and thanked me for writing it, he also told me about the I-I and invited me to participate. I couldn’t afford to travel to Boulder for the first meetings, however Ken did send me a transcript of A Theory of Everything and I became a member of I-I. This was my first introduction to Spiral Dynamics. I was impressed and bought the book by Beck and Cowan. I then thought I’d apply the theory and wrote the first installment ‘Memes at War’ one Sunday afternoon. Frank published it and within a couple of days both Ken and Don had emailed me to congratulate me. Don even calling it “a brilliant analysis”. Whilst I was flattered I did think it was a bit over the top because I didn’t think it was ‘brilliant’, at least by my standards.

The ‘Memes at War’ series impressed a member of the Society for the Research into Adult Development (I’ll keep some names private simply because I do not have their permission to name them – this is not a sinister, paranoid thing, just a courtesy). I was invited to present a paper on my Temenos system (mentioned in the Memes at War series) to the 2002 conference to be held at Pace University in New York. My paper was intitled ‘The Blood Brotherhoods – a Developmental Look at Terrorism’.

My invitation to join I-I saw me alloted a place in the I-I politics sub-group, including a role on the discussion list. Through the generosity of several people on the list I had places to stay, some expenses met and a number of meetings with I-I folk arranged, including Ken.

I met with Ken in late June, 2002. Initially there was some confusion. The meeting was set for Saturday but when I rang his bell at his loft in Denver there was no answer (so I spent a useful afternoon browsing Front Page on the corner, people who’ve there will know it). There had been a stuff up. I was contacted at my hotel by Willow and a new time was set for Sunday.

I found Ken to be a generous and genial host. We talked for four hours, mostly about the work he was doing on post-metaphysics. Ken asked about my interests and talked about how I might be involved in I-I, perhaps by being the second in charge (after Greg Wilpert) of the politics branch of I-I, and also writing a book on integral politics.

I found Ken to be charming and open. However, during our talk I experienced a few odd notes. Before I describe them I need to explain something about myself. During my early 20’s I was a friend of Sue Hawke, daughter of the future PM of Australia, Bob Hawke. Through Sue and other politicians’ children (including the leader of the Victorian Labor opposition, Clyde Holding) I had mixed in circles close to political power. I was also in the Down To Earth movement which was founded by Dr Jim Cairns, a former Deputy PM and Treasurer in the Whitlam government. One of the photos I planned to post shows Jim at a planning meeting for the national DTE Berri ConFest (conference/festival). Eventually there was a difference of opinion in DTE and I was nominated to write to Jim to ask him to resign, which made the front pages of the majors. Also, as a result of my involvement in film and TV I got to mix with and meet a number of prominent actors and directors, including Mel Gibson.

Now, the point of all this name dropping is to say that I am completely underwhelmed by sycophancy and celebrities. I know that it’s all an illusion and that these folk are fallible people like the rest of us. And that’s the sour note in my meeting with Ken. He told me the story of how both Clinton and Gore had read some of his work and how they had expected Gore as VP to make a speech using integral concepts. He also proudly told me that the actors, Minnie Driver and Keanu Reeves were interested. He said it such a way that I was supposed to be impressed. But why would I be? Driver and Reeves are not all that good as actors. As for the Gore speech – I clearly remember being stunned by the naivety in the expectation that Gore would make a national speech using a still marginal theory.

In my view it was all rather grandiose and unrealistic. There was a sense of mania about it all. Sure, there was a sense of excitement and of promise, but also a sense of over-reaching and of seeking the limelight. Ken wasn’t interested in beavering away in a quiet corner, he wanted to be centre stage. What I questioned was his idea of where centre stage is. With B grade actors?

After meeting some of the central I-I folk in San Francisco I came away with the feeling that there was more than a touch of narcissism and grandiosity to the I-I project.

Then things turned sour. When I returned to Oz I started to criticize Boomeritis and Ken reacted angrily, as did Don Beck. Instead of being touted as being a potential second in charge of I-I politics I had become, in Ken’s words “an angry greed dude, with red stripes”.

There’s more to this story about Don Beck (which I will share later) – but my conclusion is simply this. As long as you reflect Ken’s brilliance back to him you are fine. As soon as you find flaws you are attacked. The private emails to me, especially from Don Beck, were outrageous. How dare I criticize them! My motives apparently, were 1. Professional jealousy and 2. Personal animosity. This is just paranoid.

So I’ve been personally burnt by both Ken and Don because I crossed a line.

Now a word of caution. Ken does listen to critics, eventually. First he will resent the criticism and then after enough people have repeated it back to him he absorbs it into his theory, without always acknowledging the source of his ‘new’ understanding – your idea becomes his idea. There is a serious ethical issue here but given that he exists outside normal peer review processes he is not under the sort of scrutiny he should be.

In general I try to refrain from psychoanalysing people. Frankly I do not know either Ken or Don well enough to accurately assess what’s going on. But I’m a good judge of character and I’m going to go way out on a limb and suggest that part of the dynamic in I-I is a type of mania (makes me wonder if Ken’s illness was not more about the polar collapse into depresion). Some forms of genius is linked to mania. There’s a good side and a bad side. The good side is genuine brilliance and creativity and real insight. The bad side is over-reach, grandiosity and paranoia. Mania causes a kind of charisma and it attracts followers. I’ve seen it in other people – but its the kind of charisma that eventually burns people. It’s also the type of charisma that demands an impossible loyalty. As far as I’m concerned Ken’s attack on his critics is consistent with a form of mania (mild, not the debilitating kind) that creates both his moments of brilliance and his moments of paranoia.

The thing is that I liked Ken, but I’m no fan of bullshit and I won’t wear it from anyone, no matter who they are.

At the moment, as far as I can tell, the dynamics of I-I are infected by Ken’s manic/charismatic personality. There are good people around him who do pull him to line, but there are also the usual sycophants and opportunists. The danger of the manic personality is that eventually they draw the sycophants closer, and it is these people who create the them/us dynamics as they try and feed off the creative energy of the cahrismatic’s mania. If Ken has not got ‘grounded’ people around him then we will see an even further circling of the wagons. This is not just about cultic behaviour because it happens in all sorts of groups, particularly in political groups under strong, charismatic and manic leaders (Hitler being an obvious and extreme example – and Dr Jim Cairns being a much milder example – you see, I’ve been there and done that, lol). Which could take us on another thread into the politics of charisma and personal power…genuine leadership is moderated by a good dose of humility and compassion.

Ray

Elliot Benjamin wrote an article in 2005 called “Spirituality and Cults: An Integrally Informed Analysis.” It can be found at www.integralscience.org. He applied some of the methodology included in Spiritual Choices as well as some of Ken’s principles. He analyzed a handful of groups including scientology.

Elliot recently added another chapter on Ken and I-I based on his personal experiences. I’ve enclosed it here. He does NOT find Ken or I-I to be a cult. While he sees some problems he concludes: “But make no mistake about it; for those people concerned in regard to the cult dangers of Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, at this point I do not see anything serious enough to be very alarmed about.”

ON KEN WILBER’S INTEGRAL INSTITUTE: AN EXPERIENTIAL ANALYSIS by Elliot Benjamin, Ph.D 7/6/06

There have been a number of people who have expressed serious concerns and misgivings regarding the cult dangers of philosopher Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute (c.f. [1]). These criticisms have generally focused upon Wilber’s harsh comments regarding scholars who disagree with his philosophical opinions. This has become increasingly more evident with the development of the Integral Institute website and especially Ken Wilber’s private website (c.f. [1], [2]), although there was quite an uproar in academic circles in the aftermath of Wilber’s aggressive and condescending remarks toward his critics in both his 1995 acclaimed book”Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” and his 2003 novel “Boomeritis.” (c.f. [3]). To Wilber’s credit he did engage in highly constructive dialogue early on with his most prominent academic critics, as evidenced in the 1997 book “Ken Wilber In Dialogue” (c.f. [4]). However, it appears that with the launching and development of Integral Institute over the past few years, there is now sufficient reason to examine both the asserted guru characteristics of Ken Wilber as well as cult dangers of Integral Institute. It is with this purpose in mind that I wish to apply the tri-perspective experiential analysis that I have described in my “Modern Religions” book (c.f. [5]) to Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute.

Since my tri-perspective analysis is based primarily upon my own experience, a crucial component for me is my private encounter with Ken Wilber in his Denver apartment in November, 2003. Having read a number of his books and having felt tremendous impact and inspiration from his writings (c.f. [6]), I decided to fly out to Denver to meet personally with Wilber, as my mathematical interests in applying my pure mathematical knowledge to his Integral theory of shifts in levels of consciousness (c.f. [7]) gained me this invitation. I spent 5 or 6 hours with Wilber in his Denver apartment, including 2 hours of private conversation. The openness, friendliness, graciousness, intellectual stimulation, and respect he showed me was totally amazing to me, especially since at that time I had not published any of my writings on spirituality and cults or anything for that matter aside from mathematics or mathematics education. I left my visit with Wilber feeling both privileged and “high,” determined to develop myself as a philosopher in my own right, get my philosophical articles on spirituality and cults published, and to become involved with Integral Institute.

The main purpose of Integral Institute was to engage people in incorporating the “four quadrants” of individual (intrinsic), behavioral (extrinsic), cultural, and social in all academic endeavors: including psychology, sociology, religion, politics, education, medicine, law, philosophy, anthropology, etc. (c.f. [8]). At that time there was also a strong interplay between Integral theory and Spiral Dynamics theory (c.f. [9]) to describe the levels of consciousness of both the individual and society, and an emphasis upon people becoming “second tier” thinkers, which essentially means to be able to take the viewpoints of all different levels of consciousness. Although recently Wilber has become much more detached from Spiral Dynamics as a comprehensive descriptive Integral theory model (c.f. [10], at the time of my meeting Wilber I was aware (deep down) of a kind of Us. vs. Them dichotomy regarding the “highest” levels of consciousness of the truly Integral thinkers. However, I must admit that I was so taken with all the Ken Wilber books I had read and my meeting with Wilber himself, that I did not pay much conscious attention to this preliminary note of personal warning.

Soon after my meeting with Wilber, I visited with one of the higher ups in Integral Institute in New Jersey, and became even more “high,” as this person was extremely complimentary of my ideas and self-published books, and led me to believe that there was a place for me in the upper echelons of Integral Institute. My Group Theory/Consciousness article got accepted for Allan Combs’ Integral Consciousness domain in the Integral Institute website (c.f. [7]) and after a while I worked through the complications and challenges to have my Integral Mathematics article accepted in Integral Institute’s prestigious AQAL (All Quadrants All Levels; the crux of Integral theory) internet journal. This process included a long phone editing conversation with Ken Wilber himself (and his close associates), and Ken even made arrangements to send me his Integral Spirituality manuscript (c.f. [10]) before it was officially published; needless to say I was quite honored.

However, while all this excitement and upward mobility and potential for me progressing in Integral Institute was happening, there were some simultaneous contradictory events going on that were starting to trouble me. For one, the costs of Wilber’s seminars that began in 2004 were extremely expensive, even surpassing the costs of the Avatar workshop which I had written about with serious concerns regarding its cultish characteristics (c.f. [5], [11]). I had in fact made the initial agreement to attend this seminar in Colorado but changed my mind after taking stock of my realistic finances and discussing the matter with an old friend who had participated with me in an evening event in New York City to discuss the work of both Ken Wilber and controversial guru Alan Cohen (c.f. [12]). But even more troubling to me, I knew that Wilber had had some kind of disciple relationship with a far more controversial guru who I had no doubt was extremely dangerous to his followers. I am speaking of Adi Da, originally known as Free John amongst other names (c.f. [13], [14]), and I had broached discussing Wilber’s involvement with him in our private meeting. Wilber explained to me that his involvement with Adi Da was minimal, and that he broke away when Adi Da became more bizarre and suspicious (c.f. [14). However, I did not think that Wilber had a real understanding of the cult dangers of certain new age spiritual organizations, especially Scientology, both from my meeting with him as well as from his writings in the book "Spiritual Choices" (c.f. [15]) which he personally recommended that I read, and from his exuberant previous praise of Adi Da (c.f. [13], [14]).

But these were still relatively minor incidents to me, until I attended the 2004 ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) (c.f. [16]) conference in Edmonton, Canada. At various times during this conference I found myself talking openly about the wonderful spiritual development possible in Integral Institute without any cult dangers, but some of the responses I got from people were less than enthusiastic and were actually rather disconcerting. In addition, as I found myself raving about Ken Wilber to my personal friends and acquaintances, I could see that people were taking me with a grain of salt, looking at me as if I were following a “guru.” I was gradually becoming aware that there were strong viewpoints in both Ken Wilber and Integral Institute that I did not completely agree with, including Wilber’s openness to gurus, appreciation of diverse and contradictory political stances, his condescending attack on the “new age” sensitivity people, rather viscously referred to by Wilber as the “Mean Green Meme” (c.f. [17]), as well as the extremely complicated and abstruse development of his four quadrants into eight “zones,” where each quadrant has an inner and outer “perspective,” as outlined in the Integral Spirituality manuscript that I had been privileged to read (c.f. [10]). Wilber also included more of his Integral Mathematics symbolism in this manuscript (c.f. [10], and although I managed to incorporate enough of this in my Integral Mathematics article to satisfy Wilber and his AQAL editors, I knew that my heart was not really in it, and his new theories seemed too abstract and contorted to me in regard to its potential of being applied effectively in practical situations. But I was not yet ready to get off the Integral bandwagon. Allan Combs, a prominent author on consciousness in his own right (c.f. [18]) and a close colleague of Wilber as well as one of the leaders in Integral Institute, had submitted my article on Art And Mental Disturbances (c.f. [19]) to the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, where it is presently being considered for publication. Although Combs’ Integral Consciousness domain in Integral Institute has not materialized and I was doubting if my Group Theory/Consciousness article was ever going to appear on the Integral Institute website, I considered my positive association with Allan Combs to be an indication that Ken Wilber and Integral Institute was still safe and legitimate for me. However, as my direct contacts with the higher ups at Integral Institute became briefer and less and less frequent, my disillusionment began to increase. Approximately a year ago I was contacted by someone who read my Spirituality & Cults Experiential Analysis article on the Integral Science website (separate from Integral Institute; c.f. [20]), conveying to me the serious concerns many people were having about the guru and cult dangers of Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, and suggesting that I apply my experiential analysis to Integral Institute. I was not ready to do so at the time, but after being contacted by this same person a year later who now is conveying to me how these concerns have become increasingly escalated (c.f. [1]), the timing is right for me, based upon two recent experiences.

After having read Wilber’s Integral Spirituality manuscript, I decided to try to assimilate his current ideas about his eight zones and perspectives into my Spirituality & Cults article in order to progress from the Integral Institute approved designation of being “Integrally Informed” to official acceptance in the AQAL journal, as my Integral Mathematics article had successfully gone this route. I must admit that not the least of my reasons for doing this was the prospect of having another phone conversation with Ken Wilber, as this was the last part of the editing process to have an article accepted in AQAL journal. I knew (deep down) that what I was trying to do was rather staged and artificial for me, as I did not truly believe in or appreciate the usefulness of Wilber’s new ideas that I was trying to incorporate into my article. Sure enough, my article was not received well by the AQAL editor, and I was invited to rework the article for the purpose of making it “Integrally Informed,” as it was explained to me that it was far removed from AQAL journal standards.

Needless to say, I was not enthused at this invitation, and I responded in a rather lukewarm way, leaving it as a vague possibility in the distant future. I also asked when my Integral Mathematics article would be available to the public, and I have not heard back from this editor. This experience did remind me of the dictionary of Integral Institute terms that had been sent to me by the AQAL editor to prepare me for my phone conversation with Wilber to discuss my Integral Mathematics article six months ago. And how when I did talk to Wilber, he was not too happy about my lack of thorough understanding of the distinction between “quadrant” and “quadrivium” (c.f. [10). Yes--I felt somewhat like I was "in school," trying to learn the "right way" and being the apprentice of the great philosopher. In my deepest self I knew that this was no longer right for me; it was not what I meant by the description I gave to my own philosophy of life: Natural Dimension.

But the final break for me has occurred this past week as I returned to Denver, not to meet again with Wilber (my request to do so was not taken seriously by the higher ups in the organization), but to lead a panel workshop at the 2006 ICSA conference, entitled "Coming Back To Religion And Spirituality After Spiritual Abuse." I took the leap and finally decided to enter the public arena, promoting my "Modern Religions" book, talking openly about Scientology, and in the same breath I found myself quite naturally talking about my recent involvement with Ken Wilber and Integral Institute. Yes--I was starting to think about the possibility of there being cult dangers in the organization.

And finally this brings me to my tri-perspective experiential analysis of Integral Institute. I won’t go through all three scales that I have used in detail, although the interested reader can find this in my related article and book (c.f. [5]). But to give a brief generic description of the first two scales, my first scale is the Anthony Typology (c.f. [15]), and there are three categories in this scale: multilevel/unilevel, technical/charismatic, and monistic/dualistic. Multilevel refers to authentic spiritual experience whereas unilevel refers to more mundane psychological or material gain. Technical refers to processes or techniques whereas charismatic refers to mystique and charisma of a guru figure. Monistic refers to non-judgmental openness to all people whereas dualistic refers to an Us vs. Them elitist dichotomy. Suffice it to say that although the Anthony Typology has been helpful to me in understanding the cult dangers (or beneficial qualities) of a number of what I have referred to as new age spiritual organizations (c.f. [5]), this is not tremendously helpful to me in evaluating Integral Institute. The reason is that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what categories in the Anthony Typology in which to place Integral Institute.

Ken Wilber’s writings are enormously complex and brilliant, full of ideas as well as recommended techniques and practices. But there is also the tremendously impactful and forceful presence and mystique of Ken Wilber himself, in his full 6’ 6’’ bald rather intimidating grand stature. Integral Institute is certainly open to all people who are interested, but there is most definitely the “right” way of being fully integral, second tier (or third tier), highest level of consciousness, etc. Perhaps the most I can say with confidence about Integral Institute in the Anthony Typology is that it is in the Multilevel category, in the context of representing an authentic potential of spiritual experience.

In regard to the second scale which I referred to as the Wilber Integral Model (c.f. [5]) I would place Integral Institute in-between the rational and trans-rational continuum, which I have described as a continuum from pre-rational to pseudo-rational to rational to trans-rational, along the lines of Wilber’s previous writings (c.f. [5], [6], [8], [10]). However, one can start to see some alarms as there is little historical continuity with religious traditions, the emphasis being upon a modern assimilation of all spiritual and religious viewpoints. In addition, Integral Institute is most definitely run by Ken Wilber in what I consider to be a benevolent authoritarian manner, somewhat similar to the way in which Neale Donald Walsch runs his Conversations With God organization (c.f. [5], [20]. [21]). I do not see any phasing out of Wilber’s leadership during his lifetime. Thus, the lack of historical continuity and phasing out of leadership are red flags to me for Integral Institute in Ken Wilber’s own Integral model.

But lastly and most critically, the 15 item scale I have used and refer to as the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale (c.f. [5], [20], [22]) is what I generally place the most importance on. The following 15 items are what I utilize, averaging the ratings on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest rating.

1. Internal Control: amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s) over members.

2. Wisdom Claimed: by leader(s), amount of infallibility declared about decisions.

3. Wisdom Credited: to leaders by members, amount of trust in the decisions made by leaders(s).

4. Dogma: rigidity of reality concepts taught, of amount of doctrinal inflexibility.

5. Recruiting: emphasis put on attracting new members, amount of proselytizing.

6. Front Groups: number of subsidiary groups using different name from the main group.

7. Wealth: amount of money and/or property desired or obtained, emphasis on members’ donations.

8. Political Power: amount of external political influence desired or obtained.

9. Sexual Manipulation: of members by leaders(s), amount of control over the lives of members.

10. Censorship: amount of control over members’ access to outside opinion on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

11. Dropout Control: intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

12. Endorsement Of Violence: when used by or for the group or leaders(s).

13. Paranoia: amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies, perceived power of opponents.

14. Grimness: amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

15. Surrender Of Will: emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions.

For the above items, the number assigned to the item is based primarily upon my own experience with Ken Wilber and Integral Institute over the past two and a half years:

Internal Control: 4

Wisdom Claimed: 9

Wisdom Credited: 6

Dogma: 8

Recruiting: 4

Front Groups: 1

Wealth: 5

Political Power: 5

Sexual Manipulation: 1

Censorship: 5

Dropout Control: 1

Endorsement Of Violence: 1

Paranoia: 5

Grimness: 3

Surrender Of Will: 1

AVERAGE SCORE: 3.94

This average score of 3.94 is comparable to the average scores of the six new age spiritual organizations which I have placed in Neutral territory, in-between Mild Cult Danger and Favorable Spiritual Benefits (c.f. [5]). Specifically these average scores on the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale are:

A Course In Miracles: 3.53

International Cultic Studies Association: 3.53

Conversations With God: 3.73

Self-Realization Fellowship: 3.73

Tikkun (new age primarily Jewish organization) 3.80

Reiki: 4.13

Based upon some of my higher ratings in the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale, my ambiguous ratings in the Anthony Typology, and some of my red flags in the Wilber Integral Model, I would say that there are definitely things to be cautious and observant about in Integral Institute, not the least of which is Ken Wilber’s strong ego and harsh criticisms of many of those who disagree with him. However, in a similar manner to the conclusions I came to regarding both Conversations With God and Reiki (c.f. [5), I will give both Ken Wilber and Integral Institute the benefit of the doubt and place this organization in Neutral territory regarding cult dangers vs. beneficial spiritual characteristics. From my own experience, the new age spiritual organizations that I have described as having Miid cult dangers are est, Eckankar, Gurdjieff, and Twelve Step Support Groups (c.f. [5]. I do feel confident that Ken Wilber and Integral Institute do not belong in this category, and certainly not in the Moderate cult danger classification in which I placed Avatar and Divine Light Mission, or in the High cult danger classification in which I placed Scientology and the Unification Church (c.f. [5]). However, I most definitely do not think that Integral Institute belongs in the Favorable category in which I placed my experience with Neopaganism or the new age spiritual workshops I have done at Omega Retreat Center or Kripalu Yoga Center (c.f. [5]).

Perhaps a significant variable to determine if my Neutral placement of Integral Institute is justified or somewhat naive will be the response (if any) I receive from them based upon the exposure of this article. Given that I have decided to make all my writings on the cult dangers of new age spiritual organizations readily available to the public, I have little qualms about making this article available as well. It will be interesting to see if my Group Theory/Consciousness and Integral Mathematics articles will still appear on the Integral Institute website (assuming my articles would have eventually appeared there ordinarily), as I have certainly made some critical statements about both Ken Wilber and Integral Institute. But make no mistake about it; for those people concerned in regard to the cult dangers of Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, at this point I do not see anything serious enough to be very alarmed about. As far as my present knowledge can determine, if you do not like what you see at Integral Institute then you can disengage without repercussions. Big egos, strong ideas, and harsh criticism of opponents are not the same as cult dangers, and if I ever have anything to add to this appraisal I will not hesitate to do so in the future.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1) See www.kenwilber.com

2) See www.integralinstitute.org

3) See Ken Wilber’s books “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” (Boston: Shambhala, 1995) and “Boomeritis” (Boston: Shambhala, 2003).

4) See Donald Rothberg and Sean Kelly (editors), “Ken Wilber In Dialogue” (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books, 1998).

5) See Elliot Benjamin, “Modern Religions: An Experiential Analysis And Expose¢” (Swanville, Maine: Natural Dimension Publications, 2005): available by contacting the author at ben496@prexar.com. My tri-perspective analysis is also available as a long article on-line; see Elliot Benjamin, “Spirituality And Cults: An Experiential Analysis” in The Ground Of Faith Journal, 2005 (thegroundoffaith@hug.co.nz).

6) See Elliot Benjamin, “On The Philosophy Of Ken Wilber” in Inner Tapestry Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005 (www.innertapestry.org).

7) See Elliot Benjamin, “A Mathematical Group Theoretical Model Of Shifts Into Higher Levels Of Consciousness In Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory” in www.integralscience.org, 2004.

See Ken Wilber, “A Theory Of Everything” (Boston: Shambhala, 2001).

9) See Don Beck & Chris Cowan, “Spiral Dynamics: Managing Values, Leadership, And Change” (London: Blackwell, 1996). 10) See Ken Wilber, “Integral Spirituality” (Boston: Shambhala, 2006).11) See Elliot Benjamin, “On Avatar” in ICSA E-Newsletter, 2005 (http://cultinfobooks.com).

12) See Alan Cohen, “Living Enlightenment” (Lenox, MA: Moksha Press, 2002).

13) See Adi Da’s books “The Dawn Horse Testament” (San Rafael, CA: The Dawn Horse Press, 1985) and “Scientific Proof Of The Existence Of God Will Soon Be Announced By The White House!” (Middleton, CA: The Dawn Horse Press, 1980). Note that this last book includes a forward by Ken Wilber.

14) See Geoffrey Falk, “Stripping The Gurus” (www.angelin.com/trek/geoffreyfalk/blog/blog.html, 2005) for a particularly scathing expose¢ on both Adi Da and Ken Wilber, in addition to many other gurus and spiritual leaders.

15) See Dick Anthony, Bruce Ecker, Ken Wilber (editors), “Spiritual Choices” (New York: Paragon House, 1987).

16) Note that ICSA was originally AFF (American Friends & Family), having changed its name to ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) in March, 2005.

17) See Ken Wilber’s books “Boomeritis” and “A Theory Of Everything” (book information in [3] and [8]).

18) See Alan Combs, “The Radiance Of Being” (New York: Omega Book, 1995). 19) See Elliot Benjamin, “Art And Mental Disturbances” (available by contacting the author at ben496@prexar.com). A shortened version of this article is “The Artistic Theory Of Psychology” in Inner Tapestry Journal, 2006 (www.innertapestry.org).20) See Elliot Benjamin, “Spirituality And Cults: An Integrally Informed Analysis” (www.integralscience.org, 2005).

21) See Elliot Benjamin, “On Conversations With God” in ICSA E-Newsletter, 2004.

22) Please see the Cult Danger Evaluation Frame rating scale in Isaac Bonewits, “Real Magic” (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weisner, 1971).

 

Just an inside joke from the early days of the Integral Institute.

Originally AQAL (“All quadrants, all levels”) was written as FQAL (“Four quadrants, all levels”) — which can be pronounced as “Fuck You All”.

Now more true then ever Please file this under Integral Humor/Gossip.

Thanks to BvdH for this piece of information.

Frank