.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
49 out of 63 members found this useful.
Ken Wilber's Response to the Marc Gafni Controversy
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Ken Wilber in Integral Post
The recent blogosphere explosion was set off by a statement made by Tami Simon of Sounds True, and not by public complaints or allegations made by the women involved. In the course of Tami's statement she states bluntly, "I do not trust Marc Gafni." And she cancelled the planned publication of his book with Sounds True. Naturally, any statement like Tami's (or mine) arises from a complex context. There are factors in all four quadrants which are complex and evolving, and often invisible to the public eye. I have reason to hope that Tami and Marc will at an appropriate point resume their friendship and find their way. That is up to them. One of the women involved has written a public statement which painted a positive picture of her relationship with Marc. I want to recognize and honor that. The second woman has opted for the equally noble road of personal privacy, and chosen not to work out private interpersonal issues in the blogosphere. I want to recognize and honor that as well. The problem with situations like this one is that several different issues get mixed in together and all treated as one, making decisions very difficult. Each of these issues is like a "risk factor," and the more risk factors there are, the more likely the relationship will end up badly. Some of these risk factors include: the issue of hierarchy (good or growth hierarchies versus bad or power hierarchies); the issue of students and teachers having romantic relationships in the first place; the type of teacher (the risk factors for spiritual teachers or therapists are much greater than for, say, music teachers or math teachers); the issue of male and female relationships in general (how well does each party act in this relationship?); the issue of whether power can be removed at all from student/teacher relationships; the role of transparency in relationships, and the role of privacy or secrecy in relationships; shadow issues in each person. Each relationship is a mixture of all these issues, and each relationship has to be decided on its own in each case by considering each of these issues or risk factors as they add up in that particular relationship—was each issue handled well or handled poorly by each partner? What is the sum total here for this particular relationship and each person in it? Too often, people conflate all these issues or risk factors, make up their mind about one of them (say, teacher/student relationships), and then apply that judgment (e.g., "It's wrong") to the entire relationship, without looking carefully at each individual risk factor and how they add up. The same is true in this situation, which is subject to a great deal of complexity. First, many people in the blogosphere have conflated current relationship issues with past issues instead of, as I just suggested, each relationship being explored in its own right and its own time. And folks just seem to be confusing "facts" with their "interpretations of facts," which, when mixed with the aforementioned conflation, result in ethical adjudications that either lack a clear factual basis or are based on non-factual information and often emotionally reactionary interpretations alone. Shadow elements are very common—and as a proverb has it, "One dog barks at a shadow, and a thousand dogs take it for reality." As I said, Marc has some very positive capacities in each of these issues and he has some problematic factors in each of them as well, as most teachers do. As always, each person has to make these decisions for themselves by carefully considering each issue, the risk factors, how each risk factor was handled by both parties, then the overall sum total of the risk factors in the total relationship. Blanket statements that these relationships are always wrong or always right help nobody. But going through each relationship carefully, and breaking it down into each of these issues and risk factors, and then deciding in each case whether the situation was right or wrong in regard to that particular issue, is the only way each of us can proceed. This demands the very best of each of us—we must reach for our own very highest capacity for spiritual discernment, judgment, compassion, mercy, insight, and awareness. The same is definitely the case with this recent incident involving Marc. May each of you find your own best and deepest capacity for wisdom and judgment, and apply this not only to the Gafni situation but to your own lives as well, moment to moment. Let this case be another incident where you exercise your own capacity for spiritual judgment, and apply it wisely. All information on this situation will never be available to the public. There is simply no way to know fully. At this point, we need to honor all the parties and let them get on with their lives. And we need to get on with our Integral work. This is not to say, however, that I will have nothing whatsoever to say about this kind of situation. I have decided to take a 90-day leave of absence from the Center for World Spirituality (at which point a permanent decision will be made). I have come to this decision in collaboration with my senior students, two of whom are Center for World Spirituality staff members, Kelly Bearer and Dustin DiPerna. Both Kelly and Dustin will also be taking 90-day leaves. In my case, this is not specifically a judgment about Marc. The Center will continue its important work. As that time unfolds, many of us at Integral Life will conduct a rigorous exploration of Integral Ethics. I simply did not want to immediately jump into the often-hysterical atmosphere of the Net and its many comments (although I honestly appreciate many of the perspectives). I simply wanted some breathing room before commenting directly on these types of sensitive issues. The 90-day leave not only facilitates this, but it also feels like the most appropriate and compassionate action, one that's in accord with my belief in the ongoing importance of an Integral Spirituality, along with Marc's notable contributions to that discourse. As I said above, whether or not to study or work with him is a personal decision that everyone needs to make individually. More statements on Integral Ethics and relationships can be found below.
|
I have been asked my opinion of Marc Gafni as a spiritual teacher, and in this case I am recommending that each person ought to make up their own mind, using their own conscience and intuition. Like most people, I find some very good things about Marc and some problematic things about Marc, which is not unusual with a fair number of prominent spiritual teachers. Each individual needs to navigate this territory using the best tools that he or she can.
From Integral Talk to Integral Walk: Living an Ethical Life
Integral Ethics
- Please Login to Add Comments
- hide all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
:( Frederico
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Dissapointment--Can I ask that you explain more than this, go into detail? I don't understand.....And I am very new to this community...Fondly,
Tayha
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Dear Tayha
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to :( FredericoI really can't. I had tried to make my points across many times, but at this point, it is clear to me.
If you or other people resonate with this (for example, with Ken's letter) then maybe this is a place for you.
I don't resonate. I feel sick reading it.
I try to live my life like a hero, and from my elders, I expect no other than heroes.
Cool and laid back positions are well for some, but not for me.
I send you love
Fede
PS: I do understand the decision of taking 3 months by both Ken and the staff of CWS.
I do not understand the cool, relativistic stance and tone of Ken's letter regarding Marc
given the facts that we all know by now about that man.
If you want to know what I want: I want that only spiritual teachers with A B S O L U T E L Y
no trace of bad moral behavior whatsoever in their entire life (even before becoming teachers)
to be empowered by the Integral Community.
If this leave us with 1 or 2 teachers, so be it. If this leave us with none, so be it.
I already know some that meet this standard. I myself meet this standard and I
don't claim to be a spiritual teacher.
Less than that is just not good enough. Could be good enough for others, but for me
is just a shame.
And if such teachers (like Genpo, Marc) are empowered or not completely "disrobed" by
Ken, and if a great deal of the community still think that we should be more flexible,
then definetly this is not my community.
Some day, I will be part of a new community were Integrity will be number 1 priority and when
someone would be able to step in with closed eyes knowing that NO ONE, under ANY circumstance,
will abuse them (even if you ask for abuse, and you "agree" with it, you will just not get it).
That's the kind of community I want to be part of.
This is not it.
At least not right now.
Love
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Dear Federico
Posted October 10th, 2011 by JP Jakonen in response to Dear TayhaThank you for your perspective.
May I point out that your Home Page starts with a note that you, aged 9, caused some trouble by being a hacker.
Having, as you said, absolutely no trace of bad moral behaviour whatsoever in one's entire life is a tall order. I doubt how anyone will fill that. It is, however, a very good stardard to strive for, and I thank you for upping the ante a bit.
This community, going back to original Integral Naked forums, has gone through many points of change through the years. Along the way when controversies have arisen some people have decided to fold, and some have decided to stay. Maybe just staying with difficult emotions these issues bring up could be a good practice for many of us.
Your music is fantastic, thank you also for making it available.
Best wishes,
JP.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Dear JP
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Dear FedericoI stand corrected JP: I should say instead "absolutely no trace of bad moral bahavior whatsoever in one's entire ADULT life".
It is such a tall order.
Once I was in an advanced meditation retreat with my current teacher. In it, I was almost the only young
person, all others being twice (or even more) my age. Many of them had met my teacher 10,20,even 30 years
ago.
And to many that I spoke, they were impressed and proud about this teacher, because they never found
a trace of lack of integrity in his behavior.
I am not a Spiritual teacher.
But I do meet those moral standards, and strive for them every minute. Every minute, not every
day. It makes life a struggle. Did you saw "The Last Temptation of Christ?". Like that. A minute-by-minute struggle
of "what is the right thing to do now?".
Of course it is in the exact opposite end of "being cool" or being "laid back".
It is a life of burning passion like a fire in your chest that never stops and burns
you in.
As a moderate note, let me know if you agree, I would say that, would a person feel the imperative need
to help others through teaching Spiritual things, which is SUCH a place to occupy (and should be reflected
upon for years), and if that person does not have such a clean record of behavior, then still the person could
"go back" with Agape into the mess he/she made in his/her life and, for a number of years, REPAIR it.
Everything can be repaired. Somethings take months, others take years. Some, I imagine, take lifetimes.
And yet all are repairable. So that would be, I think, the path to go, if one aspire to be a teacher.
My own teacher says, once and over again, that you don't chose yourself to be a teacher though.
You are chosen.
And one of the first things while you are supposed to be chosen is what Buddhists call Conduct.
Conduct arise non-other than from realization (experience!) of Interdependence. Not reading about
interdependence, not preaching about interdependence, but experiencing that when you hurt somebody
you are hurting, deeply, yourself.
I could write more but I wrote before about this.
My comment about the community has to do with that cool, relativistic, wanting-to-be-ok position, that
many seem to be inline with.
I was speaking these days with many Integral friends, some from San Francisco and others from Boston area,
and I conclude that this could be also a coast-culture thing.
It's interesting that while Massachusetts is as (or more) Liberal than San Francisco, yet this coast (where I live) have
for the most part a deep amber structure transcended and included.
This deep amber structure is responsible for some unconscious (yet so important) moral decisions.
"Put yourself in the shoes of your brother and sister" is in the blood, an imprint in the soul even in people
that have transcended traditions and evolved to Green and beyond.
It appears to be the case that the other coast lacks this deep amber structure and people are grown up
directly through Green means. So the relativism goes deeper in many west-coasters, so deep that even
the basic stands of human behavior become relative.
While what I am presenting here no doubt is a tremendous Orange generalization of sorts, yet I think there
is some truth to it.
And I wonder, and I aspire, to an Integral community formed in this area, with Integrity as primary value,
a place where people do strive for integrity anyway. And also where there is a very interesting quality of
Academic literacy that I think could add some deep perspective to the Integral arena.
Love for you JP
And thank you for your reflection.
Thanks God, I can stay with difficult emotions and breathe and live in them, for the most part.
Is not "difficult emotions" the reason that make me go away.
Is injustice and immorality what puts me down.
That I do not have to breath and live with.
I have to take my sword and cut some heads.
However I don't have enough power to do that right now,
so the only thing left for me is to go.
Love
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 10th, 2011 by admin in response to Dear JP
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
i think my teachers are perfect.
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to [Comment Deleted]Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
i think i trust only people i find perfect.
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to i think my teachers are perfect.other people i don't know well enough, i guess, or i want something unreasonable from them.
i've found ac to be perfect, also, though i don't know if i wouldn't call him a spiritual teacher.
i found quite a few of my painting teachers perfect, too. the other ones i either didn't study with, or was too cocky to listen to.
there's other teachers too that i think are perfect. if i had more evidence about it, i might say my teacher's teacher's entire lineage of teachers is probably perfect. you know, so there's quite a few around...
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Dear Shikha
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to i think i trust only people i find perfect.I don't know if you are being ironic or thuthful (or both!) :o)
The best would be to be able to trust people that are trustworthy.
Being perfect is impossible for a human being.
But being close to perfection both as a continuous striving (one that kills you
for so much effort you have to do) is possible and there are exemplars of
the result of that, like Gandhi.
To be a Spiritual Teacher is to have the role with more responsability in the whole planet.
To put it simple, being a Spiritual Teacher is more important and delicate than being
the president of the US, and so the implications, checks and balances, requirements,
have to be set accordingly, if not higher.
Because of my own experience and because of what I have seen as possible,
I know that the bar in this community had been set way low.
Usually this happens when the leaders and founders of the community are either
too pluralistic as to put themselves as exemplars and regulate others, or when the
leaders themselves have the bar too low and therefore see as "really high" what for
other individuals is just mediocre.
In any case, my whole letter could be readed as "this community has set the bar
too low for me, so it doesn't fulfill my needs anymore".
Those who feel the same I feel may go, like many did already, seeking for
other communities with (in this case for example) higher morals.
I have found teachers that embody that, and of course I would wish that everybody
meet such people, so that they are convinced of what is really humanly possible
and what we should strive for.
Integral Life is in that sense deluding people, making they think that what's humanly
possible is way less than what is really possible.
The result is a whole downgrade of our ideals to lower ideals, holding them as "at least realistic",
when there is a bunch of people that conquered those higher ideals (that they deem unrealistic).
But of course, preaching about it will not make a difference.
People that have to leave will leave. Others will stay. There is place for everybody.
I'm gone.
Love
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
i know.
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Dear Shikhabut i think preaching can make a difference. only if the preacher deeply deeply loves what he's preaching about.
yeah, spirituality is a lot relating to morals, pretty much almost exclusively, maybe morals and comfort. in general, i'm usually truthful, and when i'm not being that, i either don't know, or it's really apparent, i think...
well, i've thought before, being human is the opposite of perfection, so it's the only possible direction to go, is toward perfection, which, as a human, is always going to be unattainable, pretty much by my definition of it.
if people aren't going in the direction of perfection, we're not going anywhere, or even moving at all. once we start to move, it's the only way possible, i think.? no, i know it.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Yes!
Posted October 10th, 2011 by vernpeace in response to i know.Shikha...Knows...It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgkk0Hdwmo8
peace&love...vern
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
;)
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to i know.--What is perfection? Who decides what is, or is not? Is it collective or individual? Can we know everything about those of the past we claim were perfect or almost so? Is the belief in perfection just precursor to chronic depression when someone fails to 'meet' the criteria? How can one know what seems one way today, may have opened the door to an evolutionary process that is working itself out, as life. As Love in the deepest. As Spirit. Just wondering about many things, ideas, concepts, beliefs, and how everything really cannot fit into any one category. Some thoughts and questions that came to heart.
Tayha
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
perfection is embedded in time, also.
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to ;)for example, i'd say now that my ex is perfect. i'd even say she always was. and, i believe it's true.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
honey, you yourself are perfection.
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to ;)- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
Dear Astrid
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]I try to read answers to my writting with compassion.
However, I cannot help but notice that they are coming from places less complex as the
place the text is written.
I already did all the check and balances you suggest. I already came back, many times,
to situations that once were painful to discover a new set of openings around it.
I have gone through "not having a teacher since all are imperfect". I have made peace with imperfection.
Then I have discovered teachers that do strive for it. And some that are as close to it as humanly possible.
And there's the issue: What's humanly possible? People tend to see what's humanly possible as something
at least close to what is possible for them, since otherwise, they would feel to bad.
If you are immoral some times, then a teacher (ego wants to think) have to be someone who is immoral
less times.
I have set the bar higher for myself and have striven to it. I have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish
and FROM THERE I can see a myriad of others that have accomplished the same thing and (happily!) so much
than I had. From them, I learn.
I have at this point at least 2 teachers that I follow. I'm not a fellow without teacher, and I am not one
that thinks that knows everything. It just happen to be the case that I am more moral than most. Plain and simple.
And that I hold my standard as the minimum standard for those that pretend no less than to be Spiritual Teachers.
My writing annoy people that do not have the strenght, guts, or simply balls, to struggle enough (and suffer enough)
to confront their own desired when those go against the greater good.
I do have that courage, and so I teach about it.
And that is what I am doing when I write in these terms.
Teaching.
But as I said, this is not the correct place to do it.
And maybe is not the correct time to do it either.
Love to you dear Astrid.
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 10th, 2011 by admin in response to Dear Astrid
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
Your post-modern contradiction
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]Astrid, you said:
"I do not suggest you to do checks and balances, except of maybe quickly re-viewing if you're comparing one person's strength (yours in this case) with another one's weakness in a specific line. Obviously you do so in a considered way."
This is called "teaching". A teacher of meditation for example compares his strength to the weakness of the students
and gives feedback so that the student can learn. This is what I am doing with many here. Do you understand this point?
I also compare my own weaknesses with others that have that as strength, and learn from them, to overcome my weakness. That's how I did so far and how I learned so much.
and gives feedback so that the student can learn. This is what I am doing with many here. Do you understand this point?
I also compare my own weaknesses with others that have that as strength, and learn from them, to overcome my weakness. That's how I did so far and how I learned so much.
Now, can you see that we do the same thing, but I acknowledge it, while you hide it, and deny it? Look:
You judge myself for judging, and in so doing, you -implicitly- hierarchically put yourself over me by looking at my hiercarchically way of looking at things as if you were looking from above. You do this all the time, which is what post-modernism do all the time with post-post-modernism. They judge them for being judgemental!
I am not blindly doing judgements without noticing the implications. I don't name them (all the time) to not sound
arrogant to post-modern ears. But I know that when I judge Ken's letter, I am silently saying "I am more morally developed than Ken". Is that truth? Time will say...
All your story about fathers and sons is a beautiful one, but just a projection of you in this case.
Ken's views are NOT represented by his writting. They are represented by his ACTIONS.
His actions have to be judged and from there you will find who he is and what he believe in, not by what
he writes.
You say: "I missed the annoyed reactions on your writing that you refere to in this thread. I don't really know "people that do not have the strenght, guts, or simply balls, to struggle enough (and suffer enough) to confront their own desired ((desires, I understood)) when those go against the greater good", because I think this is a judgement one can only do about oneself."
It is not truth, other than in a post-modern vMeme, that you just can judge yourself.
Quite the opposite. We can learn ways to both by intuition and rational analysis, and as I described in a more subtle
way by direct spiritual insight, judge the moral actions of both self and other. We can become very acute at this, which is not to say you become infallible, but you become very sharp in it, training and learning and checking.
You said:
"In general assumptions on other person's level of morality are carefully to make, I believe. If we came from an a priory statement that there is hierarchical development, it is difficult enough to rightly estimate the quality of moral that another human being embodies who might be at another stage of development, especially when it is a higher one. "
And there is your problem. I am claiming that I am the one higher in moral development.
From where I stand, all this is very simple. And yet from where others stand it seems complex and
difficult to resolve.
You said also:
"Furthermore, if we talk about moral development and thought, to assume that answers people wrote to you "are coming from places less complex as the place the ((your)) text is written" must be a hint for yourself, I suggest, that your mind is guiding you wrong at the moment. That is indeed a kind of mechanical check of truth and somewhere of also moral (of social and spiritual moral) to see if we pre-assume or interprete "places" people come from as less complex than those of ourselves."
This is not to pre-assume. I read your text. It is of a lower complexity than mine.
Your last response, same thing. It is full of post-modern values-at-play, which are just fine. But have
lower complexity than the values implied in my writtings. Just that.
God bless you too dear Astrid.
And as I said somewhere else, I think this site could incorporate a basic yet useful set of developmental
tests to be passed by all bloggers so that we publicly know where a person is coming from and we don't
get into pointless discussions of who is higher than who.
Knowing the developmental "age" of somebody is as important as to know their physical age.
Actually, is more important, since the real age is the developmental age, not the physical age.
Sending you love
Federico
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 10th, 2011 by admin in response to Your post-modern contradiction
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
Love to you
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]Love to you dear Astrid.
Fede
PS: the highest love, is to try to help you to grow.
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 4 members found this useful.
A little less love and a bit more common decency please
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to Love to youThe subject line I wrote is a quote from someone famous--Kurt Vonnegut maybe?
I don't remember. I guess my point is this:
unless people on this forum really know each other personally and are trying to preserve an important relationship, saying you love someone while also arguing with them or covertly putting them down is incongruent. It can also give the impression that people are pretending to be above the fray of good old human conflict. Just my take on it.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Dear Tara
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to A little less love and a bit more common decency pleaseDear Tara.
Your message is an insult (for it implies lack of decency).
I didn't "put down" anyone.
When a father tells to a child that they are older so they know better, are they "putting them down"??
You can easily accept hierarchical relationships when it comes to development in childs.
But you have trouble spotting that people evolve (grow) even when they are adults, and so
hierarchical relationships (like "father knows better") still occur all the time, and I mean, all the time.
Everybody around you is either more developed (older), less developed (younger), or a peer (your age).
So I was not putting Astrid "down". I was just pointing out that I am developmentally older, and so that
while her views were well intentioned, they missed the point completely. Her follow ups missed the point again.
We are not all adults having a discussion. That's a post-modern, Green vMeme view.
We are adults at different developmental ages, and so some of us are older and some of us are younger, developmentally.
Putting down somebody is dismissing their views without considering their truth or partial truths.
I didn't do that. I reviewed her perspective and noticed it was a valid perspective for a lower altitude,
and since it is a mismatch for the altitude my message was coming from, it was nonsensical.
As I said in a previous message, the problem with this and most forums, is that they still use a Green-Post-modern
scheme (forums were invented by post-moderns), in which it is assumed that there is a conversation between "different" adults. But we know that that is a myth. There are no "just adults". There are different "adult ages", related to different levels of development.
The odd side of this, is that because the forum/site does not provide a rigorous testing system for people to get to know their development (and to show it publicly so we know "how old are we", developmentally speaking), people have to assess that themselves. And of course many think they are the highest in most conversations, whether they say it or not.
Anyway, IL doesn't have any system like that in place, so everything comes down to have to express oneself our developmental age and point out to the ones that are younger (developmentally) the things they still cannot understand.
It is funny that this cause repulsion to the Green meme.
Funny because, again, no one have trouble when somebody says "you are 20 years younger than me, so you don't understand". And yet, that phrase is nonsensical since the age of the body does not nessesarily mean that developmental-interior age follow. A phrase that make more sense is "you are 2 stages younger than me, so you don't understand".
I was just pointing that out to Astrid with the post-modernism comment.
We have to be able to handle being "younger" than others.
The only part of ourselves that doesn't want to deal with that is our narcissistic self.
Post-modern people are use to be always right, particularly when dealing with Orange and Amber, to
which of course they seem always like "the new stuff", breakthrough, paradigm shifting.
Yet there are a number of levels, stages, or "ages" older than Green, that see Green ideas logically
as boring, as already visited, as already trasncended, just as Green sees Orange.
In general, this damages the narcissistic Green self that was, so far, used to be always the new thing,
always the one that gives advice, always the more open, the more spiritual, the more...
It's difficult for many to let that go and come into the senses that there are "older" people now, new
stages that transcend and include most if not all of their ideas.
I hope this answer make sense to you.
With love,
Federico
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Response
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to Dear TaraMaybe I should have started a new thread in order to express what I said. But it did also apply to posts you have written, including this post, which you end by hoping your answer makes sense to me, and then saying "with love."
I understand levels of development very well and am always grateful to interact with someone who is demonstrably more mature and integrated than I am.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Don't remember
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to ResponseTara, I don't remember having directly spoken to you before, although I could be wrong about that.
I do finish my messages "with love" because they are full of love, as I am.
If you or anybody else get reactive to the content of the message is probable that that would
block them for feeling that love. But there it is, whether anybody can feel it or not.
Love,
Fede
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 3 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 11th, 2011 by admin in response to Dear Tara
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
lol, you guys are silly.
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to [Comment Deleted]:)
sillysillysillysillysilly.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
You don't decide when it's enough
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]Dear Astrid,
first of all, what the hell does this have to do with women? Can you see HOW green you are,
that in any conversation you project your post-modern concerns (equality of men and women, for instance)
even when there isn't a trace of it?
That you share a private comment I did to you, which was a beautiful thing to say to either a woman or a man,
is immoral. I did it more than once, if you remember. That was because (simply because) I found (and find!) you
beautiful. Period. Your post-modern feminist bullshit reactions to it had a place in the woman liberation movement
in the 60's, but not in an Integral forum. I respect both women and men, and both deserve to be said they are physically beautiful, and that's an amazing thing, not something to be histerical about. That's your meanness right there.
If you remember, you started this conversation, so whenever you want you can as well stop writting.
If you write to me I will answer you back with my thoughts, including the developmental ones, which I have the right to express as they pertain to the natural and healthy landscape of a more mature conversation, namely, a post-post-modern one that is informed by depth.
If you want to keep expressing your Green concerns that is fine, I repect that and love you as you are, but if it is needed I will point it out.
If you don't like to speak with someone that eventually would point out your developmental age, then please be informed that talking to me with not be of your like.
Love
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Message from Moderator
Posted October 11th, 2011 by stefano in response to You don't decide when it's enough
Please note everyone, this site is moderated.
If you would like to get a feel for the site standards, please consult the Community Guidelines.
When it comes to how people give each other feedback, I'd suggest quite simply:
Work on yourself, don't work on other people.
See also: Message from Moderator: Rule 5
This isn't a space like a workshop where people have signed up to do psychological work; it is a more like an ordinary place where everyone is entitled to common courtesy and respect.
Stefano
Community Moderator
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Stefano
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Message from ModeratorDear Stefano,
while I agree, and then words like "bullshit" (mine) or meanness and passive-aggressive behavior (Astrid) or severe judgement like claiming lack of decency (Tara) would be all out of place.
And I apologize to you (if I understand correctly, you are the moderator right?) for the aggresive words, passive or active I had used.
However, I don't agree that speaking on developmental terms is a lack of courtesy in a second tier context.
It is not. If you go to my profile, you can see my physical age. As real as that, is my developmental age.
The same goes for everybody here. We need to know our developmental age and the senior people (developmentally) are entitled with higher view at least in many occasions, just as senior people (age-wise) can be entitled with more life-experience.
So if you are the moderator, I ask you to incorporate a developmental testing service in the website that allow people to know both them and other people's developmental age, so that each question-answer is seen as coming from where it is coming.
If not this is just one more post-modern forum where all opinions have the same weight unless of course you are one of the supposed leaders, that as you know are all over the map.
Best,
Fede
PS: by the way, several times in this forums, that you moderate, people have told me "you are too young" or comments on those lines. I haven't seen you moderating that (I think you shouldn't, that comment have a place). In the same lines, if I or another person say "you are too young -developmentally-" it also doesn't need moderation. The problem with not having a developmental testing in place is that then of course is difficult to prove that you really have that age. But anyway I think it is a very important point. Love.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Engagement of the future
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Message from ModeratorDear Stefano, just came back a couple of hours ago from a teaching by Thomas Hubbl, the German Integral teacher.
One amazing thing that he described is a new way of engaging, that he has achieved and teaches, in which you don't relate to what others are saying, from your encapsulated self that knows only about yourself and having to understand what the other is saying in order to make sense of him/her.
Instead of that, this new/higher way of communicating starts when you are able to connect to another dimension of presence in which you know Directly, everything about you, the other, and the space in between at the most basic energetic level.
At that point, he described, it doesn't care that much what the other person is saying (or writting). You can feel "through" it the real intention of the person, the real motivation. You can know what is really going on in her or him, whatever their text or voice may be saying to the contrary.
I was touched since that is the way I engage with people since at least 5 years and maybe more.
I just know what is going on, whatever they may say to the contrary. I don;t care that much what anybody is saying, I just "know" what is going on deeply in them, what is the motivation, what is the subtle information behind and inside their message. This, for good and bad, since sometimes what is below/inside the message is horrible.
This is the level of engagement Hubbl proposes is the future of relationship. The moment when everybody will be able and willing to relate in such a level of transparency in which basically everybody knows everything about everybody.
This is how I engaged the issue of Marc. Whatever he may say, I "know" about him just by watching him or hearing him or reading him. Prior to all this mess. I already knew.
Same thing in this current confrontation in this thread. When I read in forums I don't care about the message and its rational contents. Not that I cannot understand it, not that I don't have the capacity to answer in those terms if I would like to. Sometimes I do.
But in general I go at another pace. I don't do the typical status quo rituals of engagement or follow political correctedness. I just say "you are a mess". The other says "How do you know?!" "I just know it. And you know it too.".
The issue is that for relating at that new level of engagement, a pre-requisit is 100% honesty. As, if you say something and it hits home as true, I have to be willing, able and ready to say "yes. that's true. That's what is happening".
Since many people still are in a paradigm of individuals with private, invisible-to-others realities, sharing using words with others (whereas in reality it is just one unified field of information, capable of knowing whatver is happening at any other given point in the same field), people still tend to defend themselves twisting reality as if the other person would not be able to tell.
As if, I am mad inside, but I speak politely. you tell me that I am really mad. And I tell you "how can you say that!? can't you see that I am being perfectly polite?".
In that example, I would be manipulating truth. The blatant truth is that, in the example, you just caught me directly in being mad using your direct-perception, you got me. Game over.
But since we still live in a paradygm in which supposedly you don't have any means to "guess" that,
and ultimately only I can tell you what is happening to me (according to this old paradygm), then I can
just lie and say "I am being polite, and I am not mad!".
So this type of new engagemente needs honesty, a brutal honesty, and humility, to be able
to recognize when the other is seeing us directly despite whatever words we might be saying to cover it or disguise it.
This is the way I engage with people. I see directly what is happening to them, their intentions, their essense, their quality of being. I can "see" all this information at once, whenever I meet somebody, usually at first sight, but sometimes takes a couple of meetings - usually not more than 2.
I can do this by reading others too.
I was happy to know that Thomas also came accross this and he is even offering a 3 year training and in it they teach people how to do this.
While I stumbed upon this on my own, I re-discovered it through Mahamudra's Ever Present Awareness practices (like emptyness of time) which gave me a framework to understand how this happen and why this happen.
This is not a special power of sorts but instead a higher capacity of the interpersonal line available to all.
How a forum and forum rules would look like in contemplation of the existance of this level of interpersonal engagement?
"work only with yourself" would not make that much sense right?
Love Stefano
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
forums
Posted October 12th, 2011 by stefano in response to Engagement of the future
Did Thomas Hubbl say he could do that direct knowing on internet forums?
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Don't know
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to forumsDear Stefano, I don't know if he said he could do it in forums, I guess he didn't.
He did said he could know everything happening in each of us in a room with more than 30 people that he never knew or talk to with before.
I have that experience. I can tell you that it does work in forums and in anything made by humans.
He is not reading faces or anything like that. He is pluging himself in Dharmakaya and getting the information from there.
You know, it doesn't make a difference then if people are there or afar, speaking or writting.
You still can basically Know what is happening.
Again, he didn't claim to to be infallible, and I don't claim that either.
That is why so often you will see me apologizing, both in forums, and in person.
But that doesn't make different the fact that in many or even most cases this is what is operating when
I (and according to what he said, him) engage other people.
I say that yes, absolutely, it does work in forums. I have tested this myself.
You can ask him about that, he is touring America right now.
Best
Federico
PS: I'm still waiting for your moderation actions. In this thread, I was ad-hominemtly attacked by Tara, Astrid, Annie and Al. You didn't moderate any of those. What is happening?
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Mod note.
Posted October 12th, 2011 by stefano in response to Don't know
Federico, the moderation message above was addressed to everyone:
"Please note everyone, this site is moderated."
People might not have been aware of this, and I allow time to adjust.
Stefano
Community Moderator
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 11th, 2011 by admin in response to You don't decide when it's enough
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
I would prefer to not do that but...
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]I just reported abuse on your last post as it is clearly judgmental. aggresive, and
in tone of trying to teach me something, and Stefano said this is not a place for psychological group work.
You also deformed what I said and you claim things I supposedly think that I do not (like only wanting
to speak with tested individuals - that was a good one!).
What you do Astrid, which is doing something and the moment after
criticizing somebody for doing the same thing is...
Well, I will not do the same judging you. You know what I think about you.
But we either follow the rules or we don't.
Stefano, I'm looking forward for your public moderation of Astrid behavior
since she just violated your rules.
Federico
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 11th, 2011 by admin in response to I would prefer to not do that but...
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
and by the way
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]Stanley, John Dupuy, Bern and many others that publicly or privately
gave thanks for my views and endorsed my posts during all this Gafni
thing, some of them ask why I leave.
The truth is that I leave at least in part because of people like you.
I could give details of what I mean by "people like you", but that goes
against the rules and also I'm tired.
After all, this thread started as a dissapointment. And this continues on the same
lines.
Enjoy this site Astrid, and your life.
All best,
Federico
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
I feel such sorrow for you!
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Annie in response to Dear JPThe elephant in the room is "other" and there you fail to see yourself. God spede!
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Nonsensical
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to I feel such sorrow for you!Dear Annie, your nonsensical response asks for an answer.
Where in my message do you get that I don't see my fails?
I am very good in morals. More than most people I know.
I am not that good in other things.
We are speaking about morals. We are discussing morals.
Why cannot you just agree that what I am calling up for is just plainly RIGHT?
As I responded to Astrid, the problem is that people fail in their lives to do the right
thing, and then they come together with others (as it is usually the case) that have also
failed and conclude that the bar have to be put lower since "none of us -humans- can make
it so high". Step 2: anybody that says that he/she can, must be lying, for the MAXIMUM possible
is what we can do.
That's the bullshit behind all this and also behind your message.
There ARE higher reaches of morals. I know them first hand, and so I know other people
that do it.
And let me tell you just in case: it is not truth that morality nessesarily have to do with vertical development.
I have seen very simple people, without much vertical development, being AMAZINGLY moral, going
against their own desires, SACRIFICING themselves in order to give the best to others.
Putting "other" before "self".
Again, isn't it nonsensical that, when I claim that I struggle to be moral every minute (meaning, that every
minute I SUCCEED to see how bad I can be if I do not otherwise change my course of action), you
tell me that I fail to see the "elephant" in myself?
Quite the opposite. Since I can see the ZOO in myself, with elephants and other beings,
I am aware of it and the potential damage, and I am cautious, all the time, of the human
being I am and the good and bad karmik seeds I can make sprout with my actions, every moment.
Thank you for your message though since it makes it more clear that indeed this is not my place.
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
this place
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Annie in response to NonsensicalDear Fede, Astrid has given you a marvelous response and I can only hope that you will read it again ,with a more thoughtful reflection on what she may be telling you. There is no end to what we may learn in this lifetime, and the sweetest gifts we are given is each other. You become responsible forever for what you've tamed. ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, 1943, translated from French by Richard Howard
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
aabsolutely beautiful
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to this placeAnnie your patience and compassion is amazing.
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Fede
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Dear TayhaHi Fede. Thank you for replying with honesty and Integrity of what you stand for. I appreciate that. I know very little about the situations and people involved. That leaves me feeling uneasy with siding one way or the other. I feel rather silly having any opinion seeing I know nothing. However you have been involved for some time and I respect your position. I would wish that someone as your self would stick in there and be of service and participate in this growing community, and shine on what colors we need to see... :)
Watching, learning, growing, taking a risk of participating where I can or feel lead to. Even if my responses are laden with shadow material, I will never know until I explore with openness and desire to grow/evolve. :)
Tayha
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
I agree
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Jon Sanders in response to DissapointmentFederico
I agree with you in that I found Wilber’s comment on this issue disappointing to say the least. That said this is Wilber’s personal comment and not that of Integral Life, which has been clearly, and decisively expressed by Robb Smith the CEO. In my opinion Robb Smith, John Dupuy and Tami Simon have demonstrated courage, leadership and above all deep integrity through making clear statements on this issue. Conspicuous by their absence are the voices of other teachers and ‘gurus’ who seek our following on this forum - week after week they offer us their latest books, audios and teleseminars, and yet now they are nowhere to be heard! To quote Edmund Burke:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
Of course not everyone signed up to Integral Life agrees with the CEO’s statement and actions, and consequently have sought Wilber’s opinion; the two statements don’t appear to me to be reconcilable and I wonder where this leaves the CEO? Will Wilber’s personal statement on this matter have organisational impact?
Reading Wilber’s statement the following points stand out:
(1) ‘…and not by public complaints or allegations made by the women involved.’
This intimates to the reader consent between all the parties concerned , but as always life is more messy and complex than this as expressed by psychotherapist Robert Augustus Masters on his Facebook page September 14th 2011:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Augustus-Masters/140739412608744
‘So-called "informed consent" is centered by the myth of consenting adults. In sexual circumstances many of us may not be clearly considering what's really going on and what's at stake, instead making choices from a desire (likely rooted in childhood) to get approval, love, or security, or to be distracted from our suffering. At such times we're acting not as consenting adults but as adult-erated children whose "consent" is mostly an expression of unresolved woundedness or unmet nonsexual needs.’
The above statement is not theoretical but based upon decades of practising psychotherapy and witnessing the pain and suffering, and healing of clients.
(2) ‘Shadow elements are very common—and as a proverb has it, "One dog barks at a shadow, and a thousand dogs take it for reality."
To state I find this patronising is truly an understatement!
(3) ‘As that time unfolds, many of us at Integral Life will conduct a rigorous exploration of Integral Ethics’
I would strongly suggest that additional persons outside of the integral community, in particular experienced psychotherapist who have a deep understanding of the human condition, suffering and healing, be consulted. Thus, being from outside the integral community they are less likely to succumb to the trappings, witnessed in recent blogs, of pre and post conventional and first and second tier delusions.
In future during the member registration process, the policy on ethics and safeguarding should be read as part of the terms and conditions, and thus potential members can choose whether this community meets their own ethical standards or not.
John
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thank you
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to I agreedear John for your clear view.
I stand corrected that my response is about Ken and his position as implicit leader of this community,
but it's not about John Dupuy, Tami, or Robb, who's courage is for me an example and whom I
consider "good elders" in that sense.
I also thank you so much for bringing the point of how much psychotherapy can help this
to heal and mature, if it's destiny is not to die out.
I also read that post by Augustus, and in general I see him as one of the Lights in the Integral
Movement, one of the really Sane people around here. I wish people would listen to him more.
Thank you again for your views.
All best,
Federico
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
High...Light!
Posted October 10th, 2011 by vernpeace in response to Dissapointmenthi Fed, your...job...has...just...started
...dear...boy...Integral...as...a...movement
...attracts...some...really...marvelous...people
...like...yourself...and...others...now...the...old
...crop...is...withering...and...will...soon...die...
including...Ken...if...he...don`t...wake-up...and
...smell...the...roses...now...in...verns...experience
...Men...are...not...born...evil...its...particular...practices
...that...thru...out...time...have...proven...to...turn...a...man
...evil...and...the...cultivation...and...the...Cult...of...Sex...is
...right...up...there...with...the...best...of...them...there...seems
...to...be...a...misunderstanding...about...this...matter...in...Integral
...circles...there...is...a...very...good...reason...why...the...archetypal
...Spiritual...Teacher...chooses...celibacy...pleasure...is...always...a...
distraction...from...JOY!..pleasure...however...hard...we...try...can...
and...in...deed...will...never...replace...the...joy...of...marvelousness!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJA-cN2C_0
peace&love...vern
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Don't Leave
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Stanley in response to Dissapointment
If you don’t seem to pertain to this community that is a sign that this community needs to change. I asked Ken some questions about good ethics and how we can bring more good ethics to our community. He said we need to keep raising the question. We need to even keep raising the question to Ken apparently. I trust that at some point a positive shift will occur.
--
"Abuse free zone please"
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thank you dear friend
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Don't LeaveWhenever you need me I will be here.
Just call me.
Much blessings dear Stan.
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thanks
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Stanley in response to Thank you dear friendI have little doubt that I will be needing you. If you must go for now please leave me with a contact number or address. I will keep it private.
If you are still in Boston I would suggest you visit with Reverend Eugene Rivers. The last I heard he had a small church there. I think it's name is Azusa Church or something like that. If you meet him please pay my respects to him.
--
"Abuse free zone please"
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Oh my god
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to ThanksI will contact Reverend. I was in an ongoing search for Christian teachers
to get in contact with.
I will give you my contacts brother.
All best in everything.
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
May You Be Well
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Stanley in response to Oh my god--
"Abuse free zone please"
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
moral to one is immoral to another.
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to DissapointmentFede what is moral to one is immoral to another.
For instance you say you are moral in your adult life. Yet this page violates my morals. http://www.federicoparra.com/#!videos
http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms
If you use the Embeddable Player on your website, you may not modify, build upon, or block any portion or functionality of the Embeddable Player, including but not limited to links back to the YouTube website.
Which you are clearly doing. removing the youtube link. How do you justify violating youtube's terms of service?
Again, isn't it nonsensical that, when I claim that I struggle to be moral every minute (meaning, that every minute I SUCCEED to see how bad I can be if I do not otherwise change my course of action),
Base on this I am sure you will correct that page.
You certainly have a lot of knowledge with out a doubt. Have a REALLY good listen to the Ken Wilber, Roger Walsh talk about the difference between Knowledge and Wisdom." In Essential Spirituality
You yourself have said you are Arrogant and I might add theres some serious "EGO" in there to go with that.
"I am silently saying "I am more morally developed than Ken". Is that truth? Time will say... "
Right now, I would say without a doubt Categorically NO from where I am sitting. Time will certainly not tell as now this moment in time is what we are talking about . Its all we ever have. Maybe in the future will you become more morally developed than Ken"
and yes time will say about that ... " But Now ? LOL ( think right now, what is happening EGO wise as you read this, that is shadow arising)
"elephant" in myself? Thats the "elephant in the room" Think about it deeply.
"I try to read answers to my writting with compassion. However, I cannot help but notice that they are coming from places less complex as the place the text is written."
I have to agree with Astrid "I suggest, that your mind is guiding you wrong at the moment.'
You have the right intent "meaning, that every minute I SUCCEED to see how bad I can be if I do not otherwise change my course of action)" ,so I believe you will forget the zoo and see the elephant at some stage.
Print Kens post off and yours from these fourms and sit on them for 5 maybe 10 years and yes time will say.
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
To lie is immoral
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to moral to one is immoral to another.Al, you should ask first before accusing somebody. Particularly if you are ignorant on technical issues.
I didn't remove any youtube link. The site is made by Wix, which complies to all rules of web making.
You can send an email to support by Wix and get an answer to it. They automatically embed Youtube
in that way. Most probably have an agreement with Youtube or are the same company. But they 100% comply with all rules of web developing, so basically, you are telling A LIE.
Now, see this:
"What is moral to somebody is immoral to another person" ---> That's a relativistic Green thought right there.
Can you see that's the cosmic address of that thought?
A Second tier thought would be: "There are universal moral imperatives, we have to find them and make them known."
A Third tier thought would be: "I'm connected to the Source of all, and I can know what will happen with my actions in the future, so I take decitions accordingly, that then cause the good for all."
Also, can you see that all your messages, as Astrid's, imply that you are higher than me so that you can see what I am doing and judge it? It is implicit, since otherwise, that is if you are lower, you would not be able to understand my actions as they would be too complex and over your head, and you would not be able to judge them.
The difference between you and Astrid, and me, is that I TAKE RESPONSABILITY for that implicit.
That is, if I give you advice in a severe way, I recognize first that that IMPLIES I am higher. This is development 101.
However, you and Astrid give severe, judgment (which is, by the way as I demonstrated, WRONG) and then do NOT want to recognize you are in so doing CLAIMING developmental advantage.
In other words, I am honest and authentic, and you both are not.
If I claim that Ken is being Green in his moral line with this letter (opinion shared by many of the Integral people that even teach on this site and you follow and pay to listen to! :) I have the intelligence and honesty to recognize I am also saying that I am higher morally, and I stand by it.
But you do not have the honesty or intelligence to realize that when you post a critique about me you implicitly are saying you are more developed than me (which is a requisite to understand what I am saying and be able to judge it in the first place).
I am filling an abuse case against you since you say a blatant lie about me in a public place.
I did not violate any rule by Youtube.
And you can revise my whole history and will not find moral indecencies, most particularly, you would not find EVEN ONE in the sexual-romantic domain. I hope the same is truth for you and your moral life, although I doubt it.
All best, as I do have compassion even with mean spirited, confused, deluded individuals.
Fede
NOTE added: and it is low that you use my own recognition of my defects (for instance arrogance) as at tool for your Ego to proof I'm full of Ego. Where is your comment coming from? You are full of arrogance yourself Al. The difference is that I recognize and "see" my arrogance, name it, and even publicly accept it and work with it, while in you it runs the show, it runs rampant while you delude yourself thinking you do not suffer from it. In other words, you "are" full of ego, I "have" a big ego. Those are distinct and are the hallmark of two very different (hierarchically different) developmental state-stages (spiritual development).
NOTE 2 (to moderator): I notice that BOTH your message and my response do not hold to the rules Stefano has lied down as a moderator. Since he is not doing a good job stopping the problem at the source (he didn't banned Annie, Astrid, Tara, or you in your ad hominem attacks) then I don;t have an option but to defend myself. However, Stefano, if you do moderate this and put limites to those aggressive messages, I am willing to remove all ad-hominem responses from my thread. Best.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Slippery slope
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to To lie is immoralFede, what I am writing in this post is not directed at you in only, although it is certainly relevant to some of the points you have made. But it also applies to much of this discussion thread.
When I was younger, having been influenced by many factors including the Catholic Church, I understood spirituality to be primarily about transcendence. Many of my baby boomer siblings (me included) were drawn into spiritual paths, both eastern and western, that played the theme of transcendence out to its extreme. There has been a lot of damage caused by this emphasis on transcendence to the exclusion of embodiment and on striving to go higher and higher to the exclusion of living into all aspects of one's life in a graceful way.
I want to bring up an issue that I think is relevant here, and I apologize if my use of generalizations clouds what I'm trying to say. If my point of view on this seems limited to some, so be it.
Imo, many of the women who write on this forum are attempting to give voice to the transcendence/embodiment imbalance rampant in spiritual circles. Most females do not so easily escape the implications of incarnation, and, although we have come a long way baby, there's a lot further to go.
Whether by using language that includes emotional and instinctual reality, or by mentioning women's rights and feminism, to me these seem to be attempts to invite into this arena a shadow that has not yet been very well included.
Fede, your assertion (which I understand is also part of Integral thinking and not just yours) that a person who is highly developed cannot be understood or judged by a person who is less developed--this is the kind of double bind belief that I have seen cause countless and unnecessary amounts of suffering in spiritual circles.
It's a paradox I agree, because in many ways, this assertion is true. For instance, I could not judge as valid or invalid the meditative experience of someone who has gone further than I have in those realms. (I know, that's a state, not a stage.) Nor would I want to.
But here's where the "and include" part of "transcend and include" is so important. It's like that definition of pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." There are parts of us, endowed by our animal bodies, that just know it when they see it. These "inferior" functions are vitally important to the health of individuals and of organizations.
I have read all Ken's works and understood them. Because I don't have as strong left-brain verbal processing as he does, sometimes I find his work exhausting and have to take a break for bubble gum and cartoons. And since going through menopause, I have found that my interest in linear reasoning has waned in favor of other faculties, which frankly is a big relief. Now, when the reasoning trails get to long and complex, my brain just starts generating images. It's kind of interesting.
Anyway, another voice about all this.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Agreed, 1000%
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Slippery slopeTara, I agreed not only with every word you said, but also from the place the words are said.
There is always the limitations implied in this very limited way of communication (forums).
I write almost always in a rush between 200 other things in my "real" day to day life, which I suppose
can be the case of most here.
So in trying to make emphasis in one point I may be missing others that are crucial.
Every point you made I both agree and defend usually.
If you look at a comment I did to Annie, and particularly a long post I made on Dupuy's thread about Gafni,
I defined morals as being innate to all beings at any stage of development since all beings, seemingly separated individual entities, are in actuality just a wave in an ocean where future and past and present are happening at the same time, ever present, and that's why (I believe) a dog bark when somebody have bad intentions. What we call instinct, like all animals retreating when a Tsunami is coming (while we humans stay on the beach taking pictures of the water wall) is I believe non other than this connection to a timeless ground where all potential phenomena is happening all at once.
I COMPLETELY, 100% agree with you that spirituality has been deformed by wrong ideals of exagerated transcendence. I think that the embodyment part has been sacrificed to a degree that is creating SO much suffering in Spiritual practitioners.
My whole rant against Gafni comes also from that place. From a place of deep instinctual recognition of evil, not to say that he (or anybody) IS evil, but that evil is acting him out in some ways.
I could write so much more but in general lines I agree with your post.
As you say, it is a paradox. Certain complexities cannot be understood from lower levels.
The example you give about meditation is a good one.
Values, is a line that particularly is complicated to understand from lower levels to higher levels.
Since every level have a core value that acts out the level itself, then it's difficult for that level to understand the following one.
For instance, Amber cannot understand the independence and individuation that is so important for Orange.
As much body resonance or intuition of goodness at play, it is likely that individuals in those different altitudes will face difficulties to get along.
Those difficulties would be solved if the context would be developmental, that is, if they would be informed of their levels, and Amber was informed that, sooner or later, he/she will develop to Orange and will want the same things.
This is not to impose Oragne to Amber. Amber can continue to be amber. But amber is forced to see that there is Orange, that Orange is going to be his/her destiny (that, sooner or later, inevitably, Amber will develop to Orange, if it is in following lifes..) and that Amber have to understand that Orange do not have to regress to Amber.
If those basic developmental principles are layed down then there is no issue with everybody being who they are and even interacting a lot.
For instance, a couple I believe could be formed by an Amber and an Orange person. It suffices that they know where they are developmentally and who has the highest values, and that the person at the lower stage takes the precious opportunity to learn from his/her Orange partner.
That's the importance (that you recognize) of levels, and the limitations they impose.
I agree that there is a dimension where this is not that important or not at all.
I would like you to apologize though for your comment asking for more decency.
I wasn't at all being indecent, and my comments to Astrid where in self-defense.
I usually do not even comment on her posts since we both know we "think differently" to put it in nice words.
And if you read the thread, there is so much violence, passive-aggressiveness, judgement, and condescendence coming from her that it's difficult to understand why you would point out that I was needing some "decency".
Sending you love.
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
I apologize
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to Agreed, 1000%It was my inexperience in posting here that led to this misunderstanding, and I apologize that it sounded like I meant you are not decent. I did't mean that at all, and I'm sorry it came off that way.
There may be a small cultural misunderstanding as well. It is my fault for not having foreseen how it might sound to you and for not recognizing sooner what you were reacting to. That phrase ("a little less love and a little more common decency please") was said by someone well known in American culture (Kurt Vonnegut I think), and I used the entire quote as a shortcut to making a point about incongruence in communication. I see now how it sounded to you, and I apologize again.
I've been around a long time (people my age sometimes refer to ourselves as the shock troopers.) I've seen a lot and participated in a lot of the ups and downs of this great wave of consciousness development we are engaged in. One of the things I've seen cause a lot of trouble is over-use of the word "love" or similarly packed words. And also I've seen a lot of instances where people use "spiritual" terms (for want of a better word) as weapons, maybe unconsciously. This was especially problematic in the ashram where I spent 20 years, but I've seen it happen in almost every setting I have been involved in.
Anyway, I thank you for asking me to apologize so that I could see the problem I caused.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thank you
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to I apologizeThank you.
I can see now you weren't atacking me at all.
I'm sorry for missunderstanding you too.
You were coming from a good place.
As you are now.
Thank you and I will read your next post when I come back from work
blessings,
fede
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Hierarchy, shadow, etc
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to Agreed, 1000%I am someone who has lived (and suffered) through many of the wrong turns taken over the past 30 years in consciousness groups. Every one of those groups used their hierarchies in the unhealthy ways we all know about. Many of those groups were "green" and therefore the hierarchies were covert, which is sometimes even worse. So I have had good training in how not to use power and I'm guessing most people here have also had training like that.
When I first started reading Ken's works about 20 years ago, I found Integral thought to be a breath of fresh air with its clean and clear lines of development. And although I know that life is too complex and messy to always be clean and clear, I still value it so much. I am not anti-hierarchy; in fact I welcome it when it is an authentic growth holoarchy. However, in my experience, many of us are still growing into knowing what that is and how to embody it.
All those years of experiencing the misuse of spiritual thoughts and terms, spiritual practices, spiritual authority have developed in me a certain wariness, which I think is healthy. And it wasn't until I started paying attention to my feelings and instincts that I could see more clearly what was going on and feel confident about it.
It seems inevitable to me that the Integral community must go through some of these same challenges--around power, around leadership, around shadow. To me, these sexual scandals seem to be 3-dimensional enactments of our human struggles with these issues. I see this as a problem for most people, not just the people caught in the spotlight.
So I guess I thank everyone involved in this ongoing play, even those who end up in the bad guy role for a while.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Youtubes TOS does not lie
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to To lie is immoralFede I can assure you I am totally aware of the technical issues.
I point out a fact and you call it a Lie ? The elephant is growing
"I am filling an abuse case against you since you say a blatant lie about me in a public place.
"I did not violate any rule by Youtube."
I have not accused you at all or lied I am telling you the straight up facts.
I will repeat it again this page ( You are not your page) http://www.federicoparra.com/#!videos violates the Youtube TOS
The Moderator can read it themselves its not in dispute here it is" http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms
If you use the Embeddable Player on your website, you may not modify, build upon, or block any portion or functionality of the Embeddable Player, including but not limited to links back to the YouTube website.
Its clearly blocked.
"The site is made by Wix, which complies to all rules of web making." Yes Correct, but that does not change the fact it still is a direct violation of the 3rd party service that you are using. Youtube in this case, Good webdesign standards do not exempt you from the rules of the world.
Email Youtube yourself and ask. Its got nothing to do with Wix. Honestly is irrelevant to me. I am just trying to point out the Elephant, to help you with a distinction. I looked at doing it for some video stuff for myself and thought better of it.
Show me the email from Youtube and I will eat my words and give you 1000 apologies.
I am just curious how you know how 3rd tier thinks ? When your along way from being there ?
"imply that you are higher than me " not the case at all. I am sure you have many lines of development that are way higher than I have. That's your perception not what I am saying. We are all right to an extent.
I am just saying that a agree, that I see there is a " Elephant in the room "
"If I claim that Ken is being Green in his moral line with this letter (opinion shared by many of the Integral people that even teach on this site and you follow and pay to listen to! :)
A lot rate it highly also how do you explain that ?
I have the intelligence and honesty to recognize I am also saying that I am higher morally, and I stand by it."
The Elephant in the room was about 5 tons now its ballooning up.
" In other words, I am honest and authentic, and you both are not." "while you delude yourself thinking you do not suffer from it"
Its your business what you think of me, its not my business. You actually know very little about me. I don't need to try and defend my position. That is the beauty about imaginary Elephants the people that can see them are the ones that I am talking to.
I will leave it at that.
Namaste
Al
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 2 members found this useful.
Ok, let me try this again
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Youtubes TOS does not lieI'm not guilty that you are an ignorant in technical issues, whereas I am an expert.
But if you are an ignorant, do not try to preach others! You make me laugh.
That TOS does not apply to sites made by Wix. You can check in Wix.com documentation.
Of this I am 100% positive.
The problem is that in this, like in almost everything else, it seems, you don't have a clue.
Anybody that has any remote impression that what Al is saying may possibly be true,
please consult wix.com documentation or email them for support on my account, www.federicoparra.com
Aside from the fact that you are wrong as always,
and that it is a pitty that you try to make points across and I keep showing you your ignorance in every try,
it is amazing that you compare implicitly a supposed (false) tos violation by Wix (not by me, since Wix.com automatically embed videos that way in all of thier 13 millon+ sites!!!!) with what I call immoral, namely a person calling themselves a spiritual teacher while having to flew their country for abuses that they committed again, at least on two occasions, on your own country and to your own fellow citizens/brothers/sisters.
And also, look at your motivation!
While mine is ONLY TO HELP OTHERS bringing awareness to the tremendous blind spot in morality of the integral community, proven by the slippery of (at least) Genpo and Gafni, and confirmed by Integral teachers to myself personally, your snake-like interventions are driven by your mean-spirited intent to atack me since you don't like what I say (which doesn't resonate with you because it is over your head).
you are a shame Al.
You are one of those people that will not get anywhere.
Your karma is so black my friend that a life of work may not help you.
Poor you Al.
God help you!
Fede
PS: About third tier, I have the luck of having a teacher at that altitude permanently, and also of being friend with some of Ken's intimate students, which also fly at that altitude themselves.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
LOL are you really serious
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to Ok, let me try this againLOL Fede get hold of your self.
"Anybody that has any remote impression that what Al is saying may possibly be true,
please consult wix.com documentation or email them for support on my account, www.federicoparra.com"
With that logic you would ask people, to ask the Bank Robber if he robbed the bank. Personally I would ask the bank /Youtube. They don't care about 13 million users that peanuts to Google.
I have a Youtube Partner account and thought I would ask the question. They seem to think the same as I do. http://www.google.cf/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=285fb41a5e5deb94&hl=en
"Yes that violates TOS ."
Maybe you should go over there and argue it out with them ? Maybe you could esclate it to get clarfication from the top ? Wix would probably love you for bringing it to right to he forfront of their attention.
" your snake-like interventions are driven by your mean-spirited intent to atack me since you don't like what I say "
Actually I am impartial to what you say. In fact I agree with a majority of the facts. Just not all the framing. It could be all true. My intentions are the evolution of the universe and that means to question what does not make sense to me and to help you evolve as we try to reason, as you are obviously going places. In steam roller fashion at this moment.
While mine is ONLY TO HELP OTHERS bringing awareness to the tremendous blind spot in morality of the integral community,
I am just trying to point out that we all have blind spots ( as you agree) and you have a couple, as i am sure I do, yet you are hurtling abuse at those that are trying to help you help others, that does not help. At least you did not sign the last post with love.
From where I sit as one day I would like to sit around and talk to you and chew the fat in person, you have a lot of knowledge.
Your karma is so black my friend that a life of work may not help you.
Seriously that sounds like a Sunday morning at chruch, ( oh no I am going to hell ) there is a difference between morals and Righteousness
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
PS: About third tier, as I said listen to that talk, there is a difference between knowledge ( repeating what you hear) and wisdom. ( knowing what you are saying)
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
:)
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to LOL are you really seriousAl, I already asked Youtube. I will post the answer when I have it.
If you are right, we could sue Wix together and make some bucks.
If I am right, you will have to comply to your own predicament of apologizing 1000 times.
I wonder how you will do that but I can't wait to see.
Third tier I also have experience first hand.
Not knowledge, but confirmed wisdom by confirmed teachers.
You cannot judge that since you don't have wisdom, confirmed or otherwise.
Best!
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
With Love
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to :)
Good luck getting an answer from Youtube.
If I am right, you will have to comply to your own predicament of apologizing 1000 times.
Of course I am a man of my word. You have categorically stated you are 100% certain ? Now you are taking about suing, they are opposing beliefs , how do you internally line that up ?
"we could sue Wix together and make some bucks." I let sleeping dogs lie and move on with what I want to achieve. I make more in an hour already than most do in a week.
A win /win situation is always my approach . I would email Wix and say it has come to my attention that some of your script or Css is not quite above board and send them YT TOS link. (I have been working on websites full time for 12 years now so I have a little more knowledge in this area than most).
I am sure they do not want to feel the wrath of Google. Google has knocked out many networks way bigger than them for TOS violation, they take no prisoners. Then they fix your site. As simple as that.
The whole point of the exercise, was that we should not be 100% certain of anything as it is hard to have all the facts.
That is the only point that I wanted to make to you. Over confidence can get you in trouble in life.
You cannot judge that since you don't have wisdom, confirmed or otherwise.
Is this statement is based on your vast knowledge ( zero sum total ) of my yoga and Zen practice (and yoga and Zen teachers) and other practices of the last 15 years ?
My only hope is that one day the Elephant will be come clear to you.
I am signing out now. I have a big project that I am bringing to market.
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Dear Al,
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to With LoveAs I said, I have wisdom, you have not.
Your Zen practice of 15 years took you nowhere.
That's a good way of wasting 15 years!
As I said, Wix doesn't violate Google Tos.
I'm also certain (maybe not 100%?) that you are so off track that
correcting you would take a long time if at all possible.
I see students all the time go the way you go, and usually they have
difficulties, if at all can, to come on track again.
I'm working with the most advanced Integral thinkers in the creation
of a new site/place/community, with Integrity.
You will be informed at some point, and maybe you will join
and maybe I finish being your Integral teacher! :-)
For now, all best,
Fede
PS: by the way, I work with websites at least since I was 12, so that's 16 years.
I programmed in Basic at age 6 (!!!), and Assembler and C++ when I was 8...
Just finish developing the whole peer-to-peer video streaming system we will use
in this new project...
Man, I am just speaking to you here, after all your demonstrated stupidity, just because of compassion.
Hope a day you will be more open, and maybe I will be able to help you overcome your present state.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Question
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to Dear Al,Fede, I wonder if you have spoken with your teacher about what's going on here in this thread.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Although...
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Question...he doesn't have time for things like this, I still have seen him in struggles with ignorant people.
They are tough. They were tough too to my previous teacher, a high rank Lama, one of the main
disciples of the great Kalu Rinpoche.
Ignorant people are a problem in post-modern culture.
In old Tibet, there were clear rankings based on realization.
So for example, Al would never be able to speak to me in the way he does if we were in Tibet.
But here, everybody "is the same" and everybody (even if the person doesn't have a clue) have
a vote.
The result is this.
I know there are more skillful and particularly passive ways of dealing with the issue,
but I also know (and I have seen my teachers in the same position) that sometimes you just
don't have energy and time to deal with every clueless person you meet.
On such ocasions, I have seen them act (not react, even if it seemed that way) with fierceless
compassion (not idiot compassion) in strong words trying to shake the other person out of dumbness.
Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they did not.
Anyway, not even Masters (which I am clearly not!) can sometimes be enough to shake a person
out of dumbness when it is that much.
So, I cannot either.
But I do try. This whole thread, and all the energy and time that I put in it, is just because of that.
A thin hope that I will make a difference.
Who knows though, the effects of interventions made with passion and a true heart in the name of truth,
even if not recognized in the moment, sometimes have effect over time.
Sometimes people have an insight 5 months after a strong discussion.
Who knows?
What I do know is that I don't have time to spend this way.
Every hour that pass I can spend either working for a better world in any of the blessed projects
I am involved or spend it discussing in a non-well-moderated forum.
I chose certainly the former.
In the future, I will help to create a place in which people of all stages of life will be able to live together
but respecting hierarchies.
This of course is not such a place.
At least not yet.
Blessings,
Federico
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Logo and drawing patterns
Posted October 14th, 2011 by stefano in response to Dear Al,There is an interesting link between learning programming languages (Logo is much nicer and intelligent fun for kids), Alan Kay's deep interest in developmentalist Piaget, the Dynabook, and the iPad.
For those interested in just how far back this goes, and how long we've been waiting for the technology to catch up to the thinking of the visionaries, see this example from 40 years ago (spot the iPads the kids are using to learn about the world in a self guided way, unlike television):
http://www.mprove.de/diplom/gui/Kay72a.pdf
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thank you
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Logo and drawing patternsI often think that learning to develop software and games so soon affected me in two ways, one great and the other not that much...
On the one hand, it helped me develop cognition in an extraorinary way.
On the other hand, it made me a solitary and an introverted for at least quite a while.
Nowadays I love what I can do with computers to help others,
but I don't like to spend much time with computers (even if finally I finish being hours with them :(
I prefer to balance that out being with real people and nature.
(A great thing Stefano about the iPad is that you can use it IN nature! I was in a retreat last weekend and a person used the iPad to look through an app to the stars...I imagined how a person even 15 years ago could have dreamed about that!)
Love
Fede
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
1000 aplogies
Posted November 3rd, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to Dear Al,Fede
Thanks for your compassion it is one of your better qualities.
From the PM record it seems you are correct that a Custom Player is not classified as a " Embedded player and I had not seen that distinction. Even thou the page you sent me had no reference to not linking back to you tube. So I am in the process of clarifying with them as I will be able to us this "loop hole ' extensivly with a new marketing project.
So 1000 Apologies in advance of that reply. I like the lessons that we have learned in this thread. .
I like this player with the bandwidth detection http://components.earthscienceagency.com/flash_media_player/ for it simplisity of YT embeds Although, the YT link is still there in this custom player.
"Just finish developing the whole peer-to-peer video streaming system we will use in this new project..." Sounds very interesting .
I have just built a similar, ( Except I employ a development team) but I am sure a very different system, On EC2 with Flow Player maybe you could join as well..
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 3 members found this useful.
Just to clarify things
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to DissapointmentThis thread had become long so some may not follow all of it.
But what happened is this:
1) I said that I am leaving this place, since the moral development of some of the leaders (Gafni, and in this case, Ken) is not good enough for the moral development I need to see in leaders, and also is not good enough for my own moral development
2) Some had attacked me (while not having even enough self-reflective capacity to see that they were doing so) trying to prove themselves that I was not as moral as I was claiming. The case is that I AM as moral as I am claiming. And I stand by that, and since I am to some degree public (like everybody is in the Internet age), I invite you to find more about it doing a google search. Others, implied that I may not understand "yet" the complexity of this situation, as in "not wanting to deal with the difficult emotions of staying in a mess like this". I did what I can to make those people realize that this is not at all the case, and that my leaving is political, as I am trying to make a statement that a "new stage of human development" is a complete failure if it does not account for a higher level of morality and responsibility.
3) As it turned out in the discussion, I am able to recognize that what I say IMPLIES that I am highly developed in moral development -otherwise, how could I judge other people's morals?-, which I (and many Integral experts that know me) agree with. I am less developed in other areas, like all people; some lines are highly developed and some are not.
4) I have found myself in discussions with Astrid and others, which I believe don't understand my points since they are coming from a lesser complex perspective. I have concluded in those occasions, and let leaders know (Stefano in this case, the Community Moderator) that when developmental clashes occur in the forum (when there is a level missmatch in interpretation because of cross level communication) is the duty of the moderator to point out the clash and point out which sets of ideas, or which values, are actually the more mature ones, so that the flow can continue in the direction of evolution and not be reverted.
Others, like Stanley and Bern, do resonate with my complaints about morality in this Gafni case and even in the way it is being handled by Ken in this occasion. My intuition is that these individuals do also possess this higher moral consciousness that gets annoyed by what I feel as a low moral center of gravity in the Integral Community.
All in all, as it is always, some agree with my points, and some do not.
I don't think I will continue to answer more comments in the thread unless they are lies that need a response (like in Al's comment about my purposed immoral Youtube embed, which is of course false).
I fulfilled my duty by rising my voice against none other than Ken himself in this case, also by acknowledging completely the IMPLICITS of what I say, which is an important mature step.
If anybody here feels confused and would like my perspective on things relating to morals, please contact me privately and I will be happy to help in whatever I can.
Love to all, even to the ones that had been nasty toward me in the last couple of days.
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
*
Posted October 14th, 2011 by stefano in response to Just to clarify thingsFederico wrote:
4) I have found myself in discussions with Astrid and others, which I believe don't understand my points since they are coming from a lesser complex perspective. I have concluded in those occasions, and let leaders know (Stefano in this case, the Community Moderator) that when developmental clashes occur in the forum (when there is a level missmatch in interpretation because of cross level communication) is the duty of the moderator to point out the clash and point out which sets of ideas, or which values, are actually the more mature ones, so that the flow can continue in the direction of evolution and not be reverted.
I like the definition that says, "an expert is someone who has made all the mistakes." So, keep making mistakes.
See also, "the paradox of expertise."
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 2 members found this useful.
There is no mistake
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to *but I suppose this is not (yet) the time for this to be understood.
It's ok, since I am not in a hurry.
Love,
Fede
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
So funny. Actually not. So, so sad!
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to DissapointmentIt's interesting. One points out that there is an elephant in the room (one not being the only one noticing this, of course, but following suit to at least the CEO of the website, Diane Hamilton, John Dupuy, William Harryman, and others) and one immediately get the most infantile intents of character assasination imaginable.
I would like to re-list them, since they are telling of how crazy can people act out to defend their core values and
wrong-yet-tightly-attached-to ideas:
-Astrid tried to proof that I am immoral (and that I abuse women) because a year ago or so, being a single man, and after seeing for the first time a picture of her published here, I told her that I found her beautiful. !!! (wait, there is more)
-Al tried to prove that Wix.com, an auto-web-site-making site (the most important on the whole internet), which some 13 millon+ websites, violates the TOS of Youtube embeding video without linking to Youtube (and tried to connect that to me since I have a website auto-designed by Wix.com). Is Wix.com violating the TOS in all those millon websites and youtube looking at the whole thing without blinking? Since Al told me that he would apologize 1000 times if I proven myself right, I sent an email to youtube to get some written confirmation from them that they authorize Wix.com hosted/created sites to embed the way they do. Hope that they answer soon...
-Finally, JP tried to prove that I was immoral when, with 9 years old, caused some trouble (actually, got to simulate that I was older than I was, to get access to otherwise forbidden sections of the BBS). I reflected to him that when I was speaking of "clean moral record" as a standard for everybody, that of course would not take into account child behavior, in which in general the individual does not even know yet the conventional rules (he/she is learning them at that point). (by the way JP wrote an amazing 3 part comment on Integral Options Cafe against Ken's letter. Go and read it, it is great).
I wouldn't be amazed at this point if another person would point out that I could be immoral because I misspell the English language, hence deforming it and causing the extintion of good english.
Or if somebody point out that I am immoral since when I was 5 I made my brother cry while playing Ninja Kids.
The truth is clear. I don't have, contrary to most here, ANY interest other than to help.
I love Ken's work and I have study it (and understand it more than) almost everybody here.
I value the immense quantity of things it is bringing to my and other people's life.
However, there is a moral vacuum in Integral that is not Integral.
Other teachers in other Integral communities (and even teachers in THIS community) have noticed
this and even expressed it publicly.
I have decided to speak, since even if I am not a leader in the formal sense, I am one in Morals,
and so I am entitled to speak about this.
The people that are criticizing me do not have a motivation to help other people with what they are doing.
They just feel atacked in their own believes and want the thing to stop so that they can continue with
their delusion.
I don't have an issue (other than sorrow) if they decide to do so (continue with delusion),
but I do have an issue if for so doing they need to silence he or she who is saying something that is truth.
Bottomline, truth always win.
To defend it, however, takes energy and time.
I don't have this time and that is why I am leaving this site.
I will just keep an eye on this thread for a while to make sure there are no lies or missguided informations
spoken on my name.
Best,
Federico
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Intergral does not fit.
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to So funny. Actually not. So, so sad!Let me address one point
-Al tried to prove that Wix.com, an auto-web-site-making site (the most important on the whole internet), which some 13 millon+ websites, violates the TOS of Youtube embeding video without linking to Youtube (and tried to connect that to me since I have a website auto-designed by Wix.com). Is Wix.com violating the TOS in all those millon websites and youtube looking at the whole thing without blinking? Since Al told me that he would apologize 1000 times if I proven myself right, I sent an email to youtube to get some written confirmation from them that they authorize Wix.com hosted/created sites to embed the way they do. Hope that they answer soon...
You have presupposed how they will answer and correct Al will apologize 1000 times if you are right.
Bottomline, truth always win. To defend it, however, takes energy and time.
Bottomline, truth always win. To defend it, however, takes energy and time.
Yes is does take time and energy and it takes more energy and time to defend something that is not true.
I have a Youtube Partner account and thought I would ask the question. and the guy 10 levels above me over there, seems to think the same as I do. http://www.google.cf/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=285fb41a5e5deb94&hl=en"Yes that violates TOS ."
Let you remind you below of what you have directed towards me to me over a disputed fact in this simple issue.
" recognize and "see" my arrogance, name it, and even publicly accept it and work with it, while in you it runs the show, it runs rampant while you delude yourself thinking you do not suffer from it. In other words, you "are" full of ego, I "have" a big ego. Those are distinct and are the hallmark of two very different (hierarchically different) developmental state-stages (spiritual development)."
Your Right here I have had to bring my Gargantuan Ego to the table to meet you on this single simple issue ( which is not really an issue at all, people are gaming google all the time, it was an attempt to dislodge something ) God help me if I tackled a complex one.
Let me remind you what you have said to me in regards about this almost nothing issue.
"That TOS does not apply to sites made by Wix. You can check in Wix.com documentation. Of this I am 100% positive
"Al, you should ask first before accusing somebody. Particularly if you are ignorant on technical issues."
' is implicit, since otherwise, that is if you are lower, you would not be able to understand my actions as they would be too complex and over your head"
"I am filling an abuse case against you since you say a blatant lie about me in a public place."
"That is, if I give you advice in a severe way, I recognize first that that IMPLIES I am higher. ""I'm not guilty that you are an ignorant in technical issues, whereas I am an expert."
"you are an ignorant in technical issues,"
"Your karma is so black my friend that a life of work may not help you."
"The problem is that in this, like in almost everything else, it seems, you don't have a clue."
"Aside from the fact that you are wrong as always,"
" I keep showing you your ignorance in every try,"
"you are a shame Al"
'You are one of those people that will not get anywhere."
"
Poor you Al."
"In other words, I am honest and authentic, and you both are not."
The difference between you and Astrid, and me, is that I TAKE RESPONSABILITY for that implicit.If you are truly Honest and Authentic how would you take responsability for all of the things you said to me if youtube confirms what I suspect is true ?
May if you don't fit in with the Intergal people what does that point to ? Maybe your not Intergral ? Do the above comments over a simple link truly point to Intergal ?
Fede below is the one that really did it for me. Your claim your Higher Morally than Ken because you could not understand his response. I just could not hold my tongue.
"If I claim that Ken is being Green in his moral line with this letter (opinion shared by many of the Integral people that even teach on this site and you follow and pay to listen to! :) I have the intelligence and honesty to recognize I am also saying that I am higher morally, and I stand by it."
Truly with much love and compassion, I am signing out from this thread. Taking the Ego back off, whew Pm me with Youtubes reply if you need the apology.
Namaste
Al
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
I'm sorry Al,
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Intergral does not fit.I cannot help you anymore.
I really tried.
All best,
Fede
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
And just in case:
Posted October 13th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Intergral does not fit.Even if it turned out that Wix had violated TOS from google in more than 13+ millon
pages, that would not at all be my fault.
As an end user of a service as recognized and succesful as Wix,
when they add videos automatically it is not my responsability to check
if they are violating the TOS either of Youtube or of any of the other
partnerships they have (like with Blogger embeds, for instance).
This is not to say that you are right.
But just in case, even if you were, this would just mean that Wix.com has
violated Youtube rules, not that I (or any of the other 13+ million innocent end users)
did.
Best,
Federico
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 15th, 2011 by admin in response to So funny. Actually not. So, so sad!
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Don't have time
Posted October 15th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]I'm sorry Astrid but I don't have time to read your message.
I suggest you to be more truthful and to clear your intentions next time before writing to
me if you don't want me to read those intentions.
After all, that is what I read, more than what you may write.
I read you, not your text.
Best,
Fede
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted October 15th, 2011 by admin in response to Don't have time
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Disrespectful
Posted October 15th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to [Comment Deleted]is to go around the world with no self awareness, and when somebody tries to point
that out to you, to attack, and because of having no self awareness of your own intentions,
to deny that and slash back, and continue the cycle no end until everybody suffers.
I wish you best and if you want my help you are free to contact me.
Love
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Official answer from Youtube - Waiting for 1000 apologizes by Al!
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to DissapointmentOfficial answer from Google team:
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:04:51 +0000
Subject: Re: [YouTube Help] Wix and Youtube tos
From: noreply@google.com
To: f.parra.account@gmail.com
YT Kendall has posted an answer to the question "Wix and Youtube tos":
@feche it's possible that they have designed a custom player, which is allowed.
http://code.google.com/apis/youtube/getting_started.html#player_apis If you wish, you too can design your own player and choose to not have it link back to YT.
Thanks for keeping in mind our TOS, I appreciate that!
View this question at the Google Help Forum
Unsubscribe from answers to this question
Waiting for your apologize Al, you that are a man of word.
Best,
Federico
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
And by the way...
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to Official answer from Youtube - Waiting for 1000...Can you see that you were telling a lie? That you (at best) missinterpreted the TOS or (at worst) hided part of it,
to try to make me look like an immoral person?
How mean is that?
You reminded me that I am arrogant (which I am some times), but you said "I make more money in an hour than most people do in a week".
Can you see your motivations? Can you see dear Al?
Even in the distance,
I do see. You.
I wish the best for you.
Fede
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
A joke right ?
Posted October 21st, 2011 by Allan Hall in response to Official answer from Youtube - Waiting for 1000...Fede you posted some thing very inconclusive without the context of what the question was that you even asked.
This does not show any evidence at all in fact it points to the actual issue being avoided.
I stick by what I say.
If you can post the question you asked and it shows a clear reference to the page in question. http://www.federicoparra.com/#!videos ( which by the way is pretty cool ) and a clear reference to disputed way the videos embed with reference to the YT TOS section in dispute and they say it is ok.
Sure I will aplogise . But for a half baked attempt to swing this your way. I don't think so.
To me its obvious that You Tube is not aware of the tos Violation.
So you need to point out the exact issue. Not some random does Does Wix follow Youtubes tos " That means nothing to anyone.
If you really want to get a definitive answer. Let me know by PM , I will open a ticket as I have access to higher level support with my account. Then I will publish the answer (and apology if required) on my website which has 1000-1500 visits a day. So you get your 1000 Apologies in a day or 2 certainly in a week and of course if it goes the other way the post will be there and available On Google forever with clarification of what we are talking about and probably will probably rank quiet highly for your name on Google.
If your confident give me the word and I will proceed with the escalation for clarification. I'd like to let it go as we have spent enough time on this.
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Are you joking? What kind of little boy are you?
Posted October 21st, 2011 by Federico Parra in response to A joke right ?I posted the conclusive, final answer by youtube team,
to the question: Does this link (the one of my website) violate Tos?
They concluded that IT DOES NOT, since Wix.com uses a custom player, and custom
players do not need (according to Youtube Tos) to link back to youtube.
You don't have any option but to apologize, since:
a) Wix.com uses a custom player, not youtube's embedded player
b) Tos of Youtube, as support from Youtube indicate in the email I posted,
accepts custom players to not link back to Youtube.
c) because of this, you were wrong all the time, missinterpreting the TOS
and the case, and everything I pointed in my previous message.
Can you please apologize now?
I told you you were wrong from the beginning.
You are stubborn hah?
You think you cannot lose right?
Fede
PS: just in case, as you said you are an expert (and demonstrated you are not),
Wix.com sites are 100% flash sites; it is why they use a custom player, using
youtube's api. In Tos they accept custom players to not link back to youtube.
Please send me the link to the 1000 apologies in your website.
I'm sure it will never gonna happen as you are NOT a man of word,
nor you are an honorable man. But still I'm curious.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Public Perception as "Risk Factor"? Object Lesson?
Posted February 16th, 2012 by Darrell MoneyhonKen, Was "public perception" or "PR" included in you list of risk factors? If not, it should be. Since Marc represents to some extent an organization, then it is one of the risk factors to be considered.
But that is not the main point I hope to make here. Here is my main point:
I love the multiple factor or "and" way of your seeing the situation. It is more true to how real life really is. Highly interactive, like a chemical compound consisting of many elements in which the whole is greater (or qualitatively different) than the sum of their parts. Such open thinking seems at the heart of an "integral" approach. It is a "look (really look, in an open-minded, mindful, sort of way) before you leap" way of enacting life.
This wisdom helps us all slow down and avoid "projecting" on someone else, "out there," when, in fact, it may be (like Robb said in his post) a great "object lesson" for us. Here we are at IL internally processing some problems of rude (or worse?) behavior in the body of our own online community? It seems to me that it is both ironic and potentially instructive that the two "issues" are going on at the same time.
In my opinion the IL community has been given a gift. These syncronized events are helping us wake up, helping us explore our own community's imperfections and/or fragmentation, and helping us to have what pschology author Dobroski (sp?) called "positive disintigration." We can grow from this, if we appreciate it for what it is—a gift, or at least an opportunity.
I had the honor of participating in some internal discussions about making our blog space a safer and higher-trust enviornment in which we can better nurture each other to grow. In true integral fashion, ideas pertaining to all quads have been generated, are being deliberated, and seem to be gradually synthesizing into some sort of group proposal, strategy, or plan. I have been witnessing a healing process in our community recently. It is almost like a miracle.
Each of us are called to help with the healing process in different ways. I personally tend to lean heavily on the LL quad. I suggest that we intentionally tweak or re-shape our blogging culture by inserting new cultural cognitions and new personal examples, such as a proposed cultural practice of forming as-needed "circles of caring confrontation" toward percieved offenders (as opposed to mere build-up of resentment, impersonal forms of enforcement, or rejection from the community). On a cultural level (yes, even online) we can learn to be more appropriately assertive, instead of being plagued by the usual wild swings from passive to aggressive or by the horribly confusing and corruptive hybrid of "passive-aggressive."
But while my instincts take me to the LL quad, some tech solutions such as setting up special "healing rooms" (and criteria for migrating a group of bloggers there) could be useful. Or maybe we already have something like that. I also will be submitting a simple survey to see how members feel the IL community "measures up" on 5 optimal community characteristics. I will be posting the survey on a separate blog. Assessment, in the form of survey results, could concievably lead to specific corrective community interventions/initiatives.
These ideas and many more are currently being explored in a serious way, and I feel IL will end up much the better for it.
Thanks for your gift of thoughtfully prompting us to keep our minds and hearts open. If in fact we are, to some extent or another, projecting onto Marc or the organization he represents, then the internal healing process which we are currently undergoing will help us reclaim those projections, and postively transform our our own individual and collective being (as an organization—LR?—and as a "community"—LL?).
Darrell
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
6 out of 7 members found this useful.
Whoever is without sin throw the first stone
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Paul MitchellDear Ken,
I highly respect your wise response to this situation.
Below is my personal response. This whole situation has really shaken my faith in the integral community.
I do not know the full details of the situation, therefore I do not feel I have any right to meddle in or make moral jusdgements about it.
God bless Marc Gafni and everyone else involved. I pray that God's mercy will be extended to the maximum, any sins can be forgiven, and all parties can sincerely seek wisdom, truth, compassion and enlightenment.
Rather than blame any human being, I feel it is our solemn duty as seekers of an integral path to figure out the best path forward for all beings. Not sit around blaming people for making real or mythical mistakes.
To those who have in the digital or other realms blamed or condemned Marc Gafni, I would advise that you take a look at yourself and examine your own intentions. Are you deeply concerned for the enlightenment, growth and development of ALL beings, including Marc Gafni?
I wish Marc and everyone else involved as well as all human beings the fastest enlightenment possible.
I beleive it is correct to point out percieved weaknesses in order that we may help each other improve. But I think it is very risky to condemn another human being.
Even though I know very little about Marc or his personal affairs, I believe God loves him, and therefore so should I. How can we expect human beings to be fully perfect in all lines? If a human being is perfect, what are they doing still in an imperfect world? I thought we already understood the principle that people can be evolved in some lines but not in others?
If my level is low and my understanding weak and naive please have patience and help me grow up and wake up.
Sincerely,
Paul
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
7 out of 7 members found this useful.
social holons in relation to sex in the Sangha
Posted October 8th, 2011 by rochelle fairfieldI appreciate hearing from you Ken your sense of allowing people to work out their own relationships, for us to each work through our own responses / reactions to them, and to not collapse tensions into judgements. And I think I hear you getting at the idea that while Marc has been involved in previous situations that bear some resemblance to this one, to also not collapse all past behavior into this current situation. Indeed, i see a growth trajectory in Marc's behavior (kind of like seeing someone go from doing heroine to just smoking dope), and his suggestion that in future he get a panel of his peers to help him sort out whether a particular relationship with someone within his Sangha is appropriate seems to attest to his continued growth. The proof of course will be, as they say, in the pudding, but the intention seems good-hearted enough.
What also I yearn to see in our deliberations of (what we know of) the situation between Mark and the two women is how they are not just a discrete whole unto themselves, but also part of a Sangha. The social context of the Sangha I would argue, contributes to the possibility of their coming together to have a relationship, as well as the potency they experience between them. The 'we' of this larger group is the pool in which they swim, if you will. So if they have sex in the pool, then everyone else in a subtle (rather than gross) way, is going to be affected by it. In other words, is our attention adequately given to the health of the field, not just the individuals involved? Their actions with each other, because the relationship is also part of the whole of the Sangha, actually affect the field of the whole Sangha. So they actually do, in this view, have a responsibility to the Sangha in their behavior - they are somewhat indebted to Sangha for the relationship's existence in the first place.
So to say that it's up to them to work it out, and up to each of us to work it out for ourselves, is a bit. . . exclusive (or excluding), rather than inclusive, which seems at odds with integral ideas in my opinion. It errs on the side of autonomy without taking into communion adequately into account. What I would like to hear from Marc and the woman who is public about it, is that they are considering their duty to the Sangha since their relationship is in some senses enabled and potentiated by it. That is, to use Marc's brilliant teaching on 'obligation' in love - what is their obligation to the Sangha (assuming it is a Sangha based in love)? That line of inquiry seems to be absent thus far, in favor of what appears be bias towards an autonomy oriented stance of 'let each person work it out for themselves'.
with love, and a desire to be service
Rochelle
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Marc Gafni's contributions
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Ann Ralston--
Ann Ralston
30 Deiningdal
Strand 7140
Western Cape
South Africa
PS to my previous note - I am very very sad that it has been considered appropriate to remove all Marc's valuable contributions to IL from the website. He made them in good faith and they contain profound inspiration for a number of people. I think others would also request that they be reinstated. Thank goodness I have already downloaded the most important.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 3 members found this useful.
...
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Dennis Wittrock"Truth is so very precious, man is naturally economical in its use"
- Mark Twain
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
4 out of 4 members found this useful.
The Gafni Debacle
Posted October 9th, 2011 by gillian rossI cant for the life of me see what all the fuss is about!! Marc's behaviour has neither surprised nor dismayed me. I can understand the moral outrage of all the blindingly blue bloggers who have vented their spleens on the issue but am truly astounded by the judgemental reactions of so many self confessed integralists. It is particularly perplexing and distressing that Sounds True has decided not to publish The Unique Self. Would they have chosen I wonder to deprive the world of Chogym Trungpa's classic Shambala: the Path of the Spiritual Warrior ( one of the most inspitring books I have ever read) because of his sexual transgressions? What about Sogyal Rinpoche's The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying ? He and Trungpa have been accused of sexual abuse and exploitation and scandals that make Marc;'s transgressions not worth a mention. The list is endless.
Human frailty it seems is often exacerbated rather than diminished by spiritual genius. To deny the world the fruits of that genius because of that frailty is plain stupid. Suppose it comes to light that Jesus had a clandestine sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene ( very possible) and even slept with other women during his ministry. Would that effect one iota the truth and beauty of the New Testament teachings? Should we feel obliged to cancel our subscription to its wisdom? Surely not.
What is being overlooked in the "Gafni debacle" is the fact that Marc is a lineage holder,a conduit for the spiritual energy that is firing the World Spirituality Movement. In other words he has been gifted with a particular spiritual transmission.So for God's sake( literally) integralists get the "scandal" into perspective and not merely allow but encourage someone who has worked tirelessly and unselfishly and passionately for the World Spirituality Movement to get on with what he is here to do in these critical times.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Integral Ethics?
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Fara GoldIt is with great appreciation I read Ken Wilber's clear and sound approach to taking a "90-day" look at the issues related to Integral Ethics. Sadly, Marc Gafni's recent personal life issues are not the only Integral Life Leaders actions to consider.
It is my hope a set of Integral Leader guidelines of professional conduct could easily be adapted from a variety of sources. Most of the Integral leaders are licensed in some form of professional therapy and thereby are trained in how to maintain their own professional ethics.
However, in the case of the hybrid "certified" coaches, placing an Integral Life endorsement behind their writings or their work should include a set of Integral Life Leaders "code of conduct".
I write from a very personal point of view, after reading, earlier this year, about the Integral Relationship book by Martin Ucik with a link to Integral Relationships and the Integral Matchmaking service, right from this Integral Life website. I was extremely excited to see the endorsement of both the Integral Relationships, A Manual for Men, book endorsed by Ken Wilber and many other Integral Life leaders.
Upon completing the application with the Integral Matchmaking service and a personal interview by Martin Ucik, I learned that I was the "first paying woman" on the service. Then I learned "only four men are approved" which lead me to feel my very limited personal time was "wasted" on the process. However, when I then asked the author, "Are you in a successful Integral relationship"? He said, "No, I am still looking for my Integral Life partner". Which lead me to feel even more violated, after giving a very personal 45 minute application interview.
When I said, "Are you one of the four men on the site"? Martin said, "No, I cannot date anyone I interview........unless, of course, they want to date me". Unless of course "they" want to date me. What an interesting approach to trolling for dates.
The rest of the details are private, but the overall, context includes being exploited for personal gain, through the "hook" of an endorsement by Ken Wilber. I thought, as well as, I am sure many other women and or men, for that matter; that an endorsed and published author from Integral Life will hold the principles of Ken Wilber's teachings as sacred and with the responsibility to only uphold the highest standards of personal conduct.
Instead, my experience, as well as, I am sure many others is the most base form of human exploitation through the mask of integrity or the fullest teachings of an Integral Life practice.
I must laugh at myself, at the wise age of Fifty, to find that even among the most niche circles, like Integral Life; basic human needs and exploitation exist and sadly may thrive in an environment of people "seeking answers" to their Existential life questions.
Mr. Wilber, I don't doubt the sincerity of your Integral Life Model or your own life practice. I only hope you will inspire those Integral Life leaders wanting to follow in your footsteps with the same degree of humility, integrity and honor you bring to your interactions with others.
--
Fara Gold
fgold@fara-gold.com
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
i think that's great. :) seriously.
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Integral Ethics?- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Exploring through response
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson--Opinion or Judgement? Vernpace?
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Minus...BETA?
My thought on Ken's statement, and response to Vernpeace
-I see an opinion, framed with love and benevolent pointing. I am speechless! Ken's response leaves nothing out and includes everything! (no we don't need to know someones personal details in closed rooms!) Skilled and wise, full of love, grace, compassion, divine vision, and a directional focus.
We can take the pointers, or not. Learn and investigate with the right tools, (in our own life) or not. Relax in compassionate embrace and begin to investigate our shadow with more honesty and rigor, or not.
Including the various links he has chosen, beckons the integral community to look again, re-investigate perspectives. Then, to approach the situation anew, fresh and free, seeing that throughout the 'all' of ' this', the mirror reflects 'You' and 'We'. ~~~"Love your neighbor, as 'yourself', 'our self ' " ~New Testament
Maybe some of the shadow material there/here, for many/us/we, is one that shows up or can point us to the deepest places in our selves where we don't have compassion, love and forgiveness towards ourselves. Or, it could very well point to how we don't stand up, be assertive or proactive in our own deepest truth or desires within our self and our life. This underlying force of unresolved issues lies dormant until something in another chokes us up, and we go off, auto-reaction without any thought. The projection onto others in the fiery impulsive spitting fueled by the intense energy / emotions that our shadow ignites is a result. It may be intense projection like in a judgment, or wrapped with all sorts of cushioning, (intellect, careful word structures, relationship) to lesson the recognition that there is something within the context of the issue for us to bear witness to and own.
Maybe we could begin by asking those questions of ourselves and explore the possible shadows of that nature, described above, and allow the breathing room and space for clarity and truth for those involved to emerge, 'For Them'. To let go of the expectation or desire or attachment to wanting to know everything, something that Ken clearly stated, we cannot know.
I am truly grateful for his response and for his clarifying how it all started and who was initially involved. I was truly confused and responded as well without 'knowing', frankly, hardly anything, Except for, that I was really bothered by all the judgment, blatant opinions and assumed superiority to even post stuff publicly, when in my 'opinion', it could have been expressed to Marc privately. Many things could have!
What that says to me, about me, I must investigate and ask myself. I don't know yet, but I am open to learning. I am a 'beginner' when it comes to Integral Theory. Writing and responding, exploring shadows and personal development, with i hope a prevailing fervor, is also a renewed or reclaimed part of myself. It has only been maybe little over two years since really getting 'into' ken's work and books.
I wish for all parties Peace, Love and Clarity and continued progression to grow and evolve to their highest purpose and share their gifts with the world. And get on with the business of Integral theory development and advancement, Spiritual practice and Freedom. Thank you for listening.
Thank you, Ken.
Tayha
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Hey Tayha...
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Exploring through responseit's interesting, what you bring up, about others' personal details and closed rooms...
one thing i've noticed about my actions or responses in the context of love is that the love itself brings an understanding of proportion...of what goes where, where my place is...what i place where on my priority list...or, in the context of a love relationship, how i should navigate my actions with appropriate regard for both um parties involved. what i recently thought about was how that doesn't change if the relationship changes. the knowing remains, you know? my former partner is in town this week, though i haven't seen or spoken with her since she arrived - yet which, my guess is, is okay with both of us. most likely i will before she leaves. i've not thought about what it will be like to see her, which is one difference. there's a way to distinguish between impulse and intent, and also, there's a trust, a comfort, that comes, i feel, with knowing someone through love, or in its context.
if i had to relate this to rabbi gafni's situation, which i truly know very very little about, largely only guesses, even that, i might say, that if this is true for him also, i don't understand the reason for all the complaining.
but no one is forcing me to do such a thing.
hope you're well,
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
would it help if i...
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Hey Tayha...were to inquire, say, based on straight up contextual evidence, that is, by way of our lives, who of us could honestly say, 'i've always been committed to what i know is important, and let nothing stand in my way...' or whatever. well, that's impossible. it would be considered 'scandalous' in the past for a monk/teacher to break a vow of celibacy or whatever, yet perhaps it's the vow that stands in the way? (for example, i've had two really significant periods of celibacy, specifically, in my adult life, the two-and a half to three years before i met k, which consisted of really minimal temptation to stray from it, as i recall, vow though there was none, and the time from when we parted ways, so to speak...to now, during which i have encountered, literally, as i recall, not a moment of even being interested in um taking my eyes off my destination, so to speak, as far as celibacy goes, again, though celibacy itself is not my specific vow, by any means, nor actually my intention, by the way, helpful as it may be in clarifying distractions...)
i think it's in part a clinging to the way things MUST be or else something is just Wrong- that creates more delusion and suspicion than a lot of things. i myself am guilty of this, even now.
surely, there's a better way?
i guess maybe preferences are more 'real' than obligations. it's hardly my place to do much more than declare what i'd prefer...or maybe anger helps? i don't know.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Shikha
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to would it help if i...--Could you explain more of what you mean here in this post... I am not following .. :)
Tayha
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
sure :)
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Shikhai meant, in part, that it hardly feels like my place to demand some other person act and think and respond according to my personal structure of values, ideals, and other self-identifying constructions of mine. that would just be absurdity. what i can do, in context, is to take a step back, evaluate the context, ask questions rather than make assumptions, listen evaluate my response, and state my preferences, if and when appropriate.
is this clearer or more reasonable?
:)
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
:P
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to sure :)--That is perfectly said. Nice! Do you ever feel uncomfortable doing so? Being direct? Asking questions? Just wondering how others have evolved through that.
Tayha
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
:)
Posted October 10th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Hey Tayha...--I hear you Shikha. Some nice thoughts about what remains when the relationship changes. For you, I hear, a knowing remains, a unspoken connection or reverence? It would be nice to be able to have that constant and everyone to have the love and respect reflect in behavior and actions once it is dissolved. I suppose this comes with knowing oneself and being able to remain aware and centered through emotional situations that may have been hurtful or painful. This is a lot of work...and practice.. Working on this myself in many different situations.
Yes, the complaining is a bit much, I see myself in it all, and am doing some of it myself too. I think there/here is lots to learn....
Tayha
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thankyou Ken
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Ann Ralston--
Ann Ralston
30 Deiningdal
Strand 7140
Western Cape
South Africa
Thankyou, Ken, for your wise, compassionate, and sane response to all the to-and-fro-ing about this issue. It was encouraging to experience the balance, breadth, and depth of what you had to say. I respect and deeply appreciate all the Marc has given to IL, and I wish him and all those he loves blessing and wisdom as they explore the best way forward for all concerned. And I hope that the privacy that they need will be accorded them. May I repeat what another member of IL wrote: the one without sin may cast the first stone!
Blessing, peace, love and wisdom to all! Ann
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
thanks Ann
Posted October 9th, 2011 by chahat corten in response to Thankyou Ken
So happy to meet you again Ann, and also to meet you here on this issue... in the way you respond.
and you added post is also dear to my heart...
Big love to you
Chahat, Venwoude
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
5 out of 7 members found this useful.
Thank You
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Jennifer GroveThis issue of "The Integral Enquirer" has been particularly nasty and brutish. But it has not been short enuf.
I'm looking forward to getting some real distance between folks who don't really understand Integral at all and/or perpetuate the brutality endlessly. They are actively preventing the evolution of individuals here and this community in its entirety. Our pathetic behavior in discussions about Marc are proof positive of our collective regression and lack of maturity. I'll be glad to be rid of it.
Thank you, Ken, for a sane and prudent Voice. And thank you for putting us in our place.
--
"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."
~SES pg. 148
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
...I'll miss you...
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Thank You- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Brutish?
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Stanley in response to Thank YouI did not get the sense that most people were being brutish but were genuinely trying to clean up a dirty shadow. I think there is room in this space for both cleaning up behind us and also evolving as a community towards greater love. I agree with you that I would like to see a lot more of this collective evolving around here.
--
"Abuse free zone please"
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Hi Jennifer
Posted October 8th, 2011 by chahat corten in response to Thank You thanks
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
inquiring into compassion
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Eric Giesbrecht in response to Hi JenniferI also am feeling that at times a sword must be used, brutal as it might seem. sometimes compassion reaches, not to embrace, but to cut your head off. without this kind of harsh inquiry, we would be mushy and flat.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
:)
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwali like this idea, in theory. :)
i feel like what often seems to have happened, is that we've felt some kind of urge or need to have an enemy, some personification of sin so we can see what not to do; one problem with that being that we've tended to simply extendoproject our own bitterness about some kind of frustration that we've developed some capacity to endure, we've simplified that capacity into moral declaration, and used it to replace actual ethical reasoning, in the past. i think this has particularly been the case with matters related to sex and intimacy; one problem with that being that this has been very easy seeming to do, possibly as a result of the massive amount of social shame related to sex, and to our bodies in general, even. it reminds me a little bit of a fully armed hunter torturing say, a hamster.
anyways, thanks for this. :)
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
mmmmmmm. .. . . . . . .
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Gwen HallIt's the picture of him that spoke to me first
and last . . . . . . . . .
so many conveyances ~ just in His Image ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thank You Ken
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Integral ethics article in Counseling and Values Journal 2007
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Bruce FosterFor what it is worth, my colleague Tim Black and I developed an integral model of counselling ethics that Ken very favourably reviewed. Anyone who would like to review it can send me an e-mail at durwinfoster@gmail.com.
Thanks to Elliott Ingersoll for opening the opportunity for us to write that article.
Yours,
Durwin
--
durwinfoster@gmail.com
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
6 out of 8 members found this useful.
Thanks Ken
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Stanley
I appreciate that Ken came forward with this response. It is similar to his earlier letter which I commented on previously. I will repost this comment in a slightly changed form below;
One thing I liked about the letter is that it appears that Ken would like us to use this episode and all experiences in our life to learn to be able to make wise discernments for our self. The integral way means to consider all aspects of a situation. In this case Ken would have us consider; “Some of these risk factors include: the issue of hierarchy (good or growth hierarchies versus bad or power hierarchies); the issue of students and teachers having romantic relationships in the first place; the type of teacher (the risk factors for spiritual teachers or therapists are much greater than for, say, music teachers or math teachers); the issue of male and female relationships in general (how well does each party act in this relationship?); the issue of whether power can be removed at all from student/teacher relationships; the role of transparency in relationships, and the role of privacy or secrecy in relationships; shadow issues in each person”. If anyone is trying to get us to focus on only one part of this, like only male and female relationships in general, their approach is definitely partial and this might be done to try to redirect our attention away from the other valid matters of concern mentioned above.
Ken tells us that in order for us to make a wise decision we need to consider; “the overall sum total of the relationship”. The problem here is that as far as I know we have not yet had a chance to hear from the second woman affected by this most recent episode of controversy involving Marc and most of us may never hear from her. The closest information that I can find about his previous behavior was what I was able to read from one of Marc’s ex wives some years ago. This has been posted on our site a few times before. If this is the kind of behavior that Marc has been currently committing then I just don’t understand why Ken has not yet made a clear statement in support of the good in general. On the other hand, if in fact Marc had repented from his past behavior and changed his more current behaviors than I guess he might be as worthy of the possibility for redemption as everyone else. Like Ken says we all need to make up our own minds on this one.
I was delighted to hear Ken mention this; “As that time unfolds, many of us at Integral Life will conduct a rigorous exploration of Integral Ethics”. I believe this is of the upmost importance and I would love to hear Ken’s extensive teachings on this since it applies to the very heart of what integral is really about.
--
"Abuse free zone please"
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 9 members found this useful.
Minus...BETA?
Posted October 7th, 2011 by vernpeaceKen...chooses...not...to...have...an...opinion
...yet?
peace&love...vern
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
Opinion or Judgement? Vernpace?
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Minus...BETA?My thought on Ken's statement, and response to Vernpeace
-I see an opinion, framed with love and benevolent pointing. I am speechless! Ken's response leaves nothing out and includes everything! (no we don't need to know someones personal details in closed rooms!) Skilled and wise, full of love, grace, compassion, divine vision, and a directional focus.
We can take the pointers, or not. Learn and investigate with the right tools, (in our own life) or not. Relax in compassionate embrace and begin to investigate our shadow with more honesty and rigor, or not.
Including the various links he has chosen, beckons the integral community to look again, re-investigate perspectives. Then, to approach the situation anew, fresh and free, seeing that throughout the 'all' of ' this', the mirror reflects 'You' and 'We'. ~~~"Love your neighbor, as 'yourself', 'our self ' " ~New Testament
Maybe some of the shadow material there/here, for many/us/we, is one that shows up or can point us to the deepest places in our selves where we don't have compassion, love and forgiveness towards ourselves. Or, it could very well point to how we don't stand up, be assertive or proactive in our own deepest truth or desires within our self and our life. This underlying force of unresolved issues lies dormant until something in another chokes us up, and we go off, auto-reaction without any thought. The projection onto others in the fiery impulsive spitting fueled by the intense energy / emotions that our shadow ignites is a result. It may be intense projection like in a judgment, or wrapped with all sorts of cushioning, (intellect, careful word structures, relationship) to lesson the recognition that there is something within the context of the issue for us to bear witness to and own.
Maybe we could begin by asking those questions of ourselves and explore the possible shadows of that nature, described above, and allow the breathing room and space for clarity and truth for those involved to emerge, 'For Them'. To let go of the expectation or desire or attachment to wanting to know everything, something that Ken clearly stated, we cannot know.
I am truly grateful for his response and for his clarifying how it all started and who was initially involved. I was truly confused and responded as well without 'knowing', frankly, hardly anything, Except for, that I was really bothered by all the judgment, blatant opinions and assumed superiority to even post stuff publicly, when in my 'opinion', it could have been expressed to Marc privately. Many things could have!
What that says to me, about me, I must investigate and ask myself. I don't know yet, but I am open to learning. I am a 'beginner' when it comes to Integral Theory. Writing and responding, exploring shadows and personal development, with i hope a prevailing fervor, is also a renewed or reclaimed part of myself. It has only been maybe little over two years since really getting 'into' ken's work and books.
I wish for all parties Peace, Love and Clarity and continued progression to grow and evolve to their highest purpose and share their gifts with the world. And get on with the business of Integral theory development and advancement, Spiritual practice and Freedom. Thank you for listening.
Thank you, Ken.
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Pain...full!
Posted October 9th, 2011 by vernpeace in response to Opinion or Judgement? Vernpace?
As I said, Marc has some very positive capacities in each of these issues and he has some problematic factors in each of them as well, as most teachers do.
hi Tayha, the...above...is...as
...good...an...example...of...BETA
...the...observation...of...the...majority
...of...folks...is...that...we...want...teachers
...from...the...group...that...belong...to...the
...part...of...the...statement...that...Ken...made
...above...that...most...now...most...surely...means
...most...but...not...all...so...we...simply...want...the
...others...is...that...to...much...to...ask...from...the...
cutting...edge!
peace&love...vern
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
clarity?..
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Pain...full!-- . I think I am following you a bit, but it would be helpful to be more specific concerning what exactly you are referring to. Thanks. :)
Tayha
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Ask for?
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Tayha Anderson in response to Pain...full!--I am missing something, is what? too much to ask for from the cutting edge? If this makes no sense to me tomorrow, I know better than to keep typing while tired. Peace and LV2
Tayha
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
5 out of 10 members found this useful.
Ken, love your comment
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Joe PerezI think I'll call it your "Dog Barking at Shadow" statement. I've linked to your statement from my blog and will be writing more there shortly after taking a while to reflect. The link is:
Too much about these sensitive and intimate and delicate matters have already been said without pausing to reflect on how it impacts all the individuals involved at a deep human level.
Please Log in to Vote.
4 out of 5 members found this useful.
Why?
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Stanley in response to Ken, love your commentOn your site you censor peers who dare to question your opinions. Therefore, you completely cut yourself off from all the potential illuminations of peer review. I do not believe that censorship and open-minded learning go hand in hand. Why would anyone want to follow you over to such a biased and one-sided site?
--
"Abuse free zone please"
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
4 out of 6 members found this useful.
ISE 3
Posted October 7th, 2011 by chahat cortenIs it really so that we will be missing the intellectual genius and the creative sparkle of the Integral Spiritual Experience at it's third event, because of dogs barking on a shadow?
Is it really so that all beautiful contributions of Marc Gafni are removed from the archives of Integral Life because of dogs barking on a shadow?
(never believed it was because the website was going to be under construction anyway)
Can it be possible that people can get back on their steps?!
'oeps I screwed it, reacted a bit too hasty.....I am so sorry.
Let's get on with our lives together.'
that's not so difficult.....
Big love
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
The "Gafni Debacle"
Posted October 9th, 2011 by gillian ross in response to ISE 3I cant for the life of me see what all the fuss is about!! Marc's behaviour has neither surprised nor dismayed me. I can understand the moral outrage of all the blindingly blue bloggers who have vented their spleens on the issue but am truly astounded by the judgemental reactions of so many self confessed integralists. It is particularly perplexing and distressing that Sounds True has decided not to publish The Unique Self. Would they have chosen I wonder to deprive the world of Chogym Trungpa's classic Shambala: the Path of the Spiritual Warrior ( one of the most inspitring books I have ever read) because of his sexual transgressions? What about Sogyal Rinpoche's The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying ? He and Trungpa have been accused of sexual abuse and exploitation and scandals that make Marc;'s transgressions not worth a mention. The list is endless.
Human frailty it seems is often exacerbated rather than diminished by spiritual genius. To deny the world the fruits of that genius because of that frailty is plain stupid. Suppose it comes to light that Jesus had a clandestine sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene ( very possible) and even slept with other women during his ministry. Would that effect one iota the truth and beauty of the New Testament teachings? Should we feel obliged to cancel our subscription to its wisdom? Surely not.
What is being overlooked in the "Gafni debacle" is the fact that Marc is a lineage holder,a conduit for the spiritual energy that is firing the World Spirituality Movement. In other words he has been gifted with a particular spiritual transmission.So for God's sake( literally) integralists get the "scandal" into perspective and not merely allow but encourage someone who has worked tirelessly and unselfishly and passionately for the World Spirituality Movement to get on with what he is here to do in these critical times.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 3 members found this useful.
I, myself...
Posted October 7th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to ISE 3have stood occasionally in a shadow, barking.
-furiously, i might add....
just saying... :)
love is always helpful, in my opinion. care is often helpful, i agree.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Me, myself......
Posted October 8th, 2011 by chahat corten in response to I, myself...Dear Shikha
..... definitly to....barking...on shadows....me...
loud..and often
embrace :)
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Hi Chahat :)
Posted October 8th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Me, myself.........sure! 
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
It's not about sex - it's about good governance!
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Meg SalterThank you Ken for sage counsel in not reducing complex human lives to quick soundbites. I've taken an Integral Coaching perspective in reviewing many comments, from both Integral Life people and blogosphere comments, the issue appears to revolve around: 1) ethical-moral line of development (what is the range of people I take into consideration when I make a decision?)and 2)the Lower right quadrant of frameworks, interconnected systems, the structure of the whole and how it supports and enables the parts. And it appears this LR is a bit of a blind spot, overall. :( For a teacher, or anyone carrying the 'stamp of approval' of an organization - it can never be just about that inter-personal relationship, but about the ripple affects of their words and deeds on the whole. And how does the organization frame the minimum expectations of that individual in their role - and even out of it? In the zeal for Integral Life to expand,we need to make sure that the structures that support these endeavours are in place. At a minimum orange level sound codes of conduct, policies, standards. A classic entrepreneurial growth trap - when charisma, intellect, energy etc outpace the body/ structural forms that can fully realize and support these gifts. It would be too sad if this were to happen.
with a wish to be of service to us all -
Meg Salter (Integral Coach TM)
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thanks Meg
Posted October 11th, 2011 by James Barrow in response to It's not about sex - it's about good governance!This is the best analysis of the whole thing I've seen so far.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
So well said!
Posted October 11th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to It's not about sex - it's about good governance!How clear and true. Thank you!
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
4 out of 5 members found this useful.
Brilliant Cross level post.
Posted October 12th, 2011 by Allan HallThanks Ken Brilliant and diplomatically put. As I would expect
I think that this " debacle" and threads and comments have show us a lot of "True Colours" and exposed lots of shadows.
Which can only be good.
Heres to Creative Movement in Stillness.
Namaste
Al
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Thank you, Ken
Posted October 13th, 2011 by David Marshall
Ken, thank you for a great post. As usual, you add the most clarity and demonstrate the best attitude. I think it gives us a great start in terms of differentiating better between all the issues at hand and giving the matter a more integral treatment.
Since Integral Life has excluded Marc Gafni from all its activities and you and your students are reconsidering your involvement with an organization that still works with him, I see no need at this point for giving Marc Gafni another verbal lashing, and I’m glad you didn’t.
I basically interpret this post as an invitation to take a step back and do a round of perspective taking, which probably should be our first step whenever anything this controversial and potentially divisive comes up.
In that spirit, in the spirit of a belated round of perspective taking, I'd just like to add a few more perspectives to be considered.
Ken writes,
Many people in the blogosphere have conflated current relationship issues with past issues instead of, as I just suggested, each relationship being explored in its own right and its own time.
I’d like to unpack this a little to show why examining the facts of this case by themselves is an important thing to consider and why, even if we do decide to consider all the relationships at once, we at the very least need to have some basic understanding of evidentiary rules (what can and can’t be used as evidence) if we hope to resolve issues like this with a worldcentric or kosmocentric ethic.
Please understand that I am not trying to defend Marc Gafni as a guru; I am mostly trying to improve our understanding of some of these issues so that we handle the next controversial issue that comes down the pike a little better and so that we understand each other a little better when we disagree.
I’m not a legal expert—I’ve just done a little web searching over the past few days—so perhaps someone who is can come in and correct any mistakes I make or clarify some things, but I think it would be valuable to take a look at the evidentiary rules used in our court systems. While not always right or integral, these evidentiary rules have been debated backwards and forwards by experts in the field and often have some wisdom behind them.
Specifically in this case—as we decide whether to examine the facts of each of these alleged incidents in Marc’s life alone as Ken suggests or bundle them all together and examine them at once—the issue involves "propensity evidence," which is sometimes referred to as "similar-fact evidence" or "bad-character evidence."
Propensity evidence generally refers to past misconduct or alleged misconduct on the part of the defendant, not evidence that pertains directly to the crime that is being alleged in the current trial.
Consider this hypothetical situation:
A man is on trial for robbing a bank, and he has been convicted of robbing 10 banks in the past. Is the fact that he has been convicted of robbing 10 banks in the past admissible evidence in the trial?
The answer, in the U.S. and Canada, is generally no—the fact that this man has already been convinced of robbing 10 banks is generally not admissible evidence in a trial because the fact that the man has already been convicted of robbing 10 banks tends not to add proof that the man robbed this bank and at the same time can prejudice a jury.
There are exceptions to this, and there are often "trials within trials" to determine whether certain pieces of evidence are admissible. But generally, propensity evidence is considered by legal experts in the U.S. and Canada to have low “probative value”—low value in terms of actually proving that someone has committed the crime that is currently being litigated—so it is generally excluded because it might nevertheless prejudice a jury.
In the U.S. and Canada, prior convictions are generally considered after a guilty verdict has been reached, when it is time for sentencing, rather than during a trial.
Of course, there is a kind of logic behind propensity evidence that needs to be acknowledged—a person who has stolen one car is probably more likely to steal a second car than people who have never stolen any cars. But still, the fact that a person was convicted of stealing a car in the past does not prove that he stole this car and might prejudice a jury.
In Canada, the most important case is R. v. Handy.
Handy was charged with sexual assault against a friend, and the Crown tried to introduce testimony from Handy’s ex-wife, who alleged that Handy had assaulted her seven times in the past. The similar-fact evidence was admitted; Handy was convicted; and the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the similar-fact evidence had been rightly admitted.
Justice Binnie, writing for the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that in such cases a “principled approach” must be used where the probative value of similar-fact evidence must be weighed against its likely prejudicial effect on a jury.
Binnie divided prejudicial effects into two categories: moral prejudice and reasoning prejudice. Moral prejudice, according to Binnie, is when similar-fact evidence convinces the jury that the defendant is a “bad person.” Reasoning prejudice is when similar-fact evidence distracts the jury from focusing on the case at hand.
So, applying R. v. Handy to the Gafni case for a moment, if all the propensity or similar-fact evidence convinced you that Marc is a “bad person,” you would be prejudiced and unable to decide the case at hand fairly, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. Similarly, if you were so distracted by the propensity evidence that you weren’t able to fully focus on the unique details of the most recent relationships, you would also be prejudiced and unable to decide the case fairly, again according to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada, after applying a five-point test that included gauging these prejudicial effects, eventually decided that the alleged assaults against Handy’s ex-wife were not admissible evidence and ordered a new trial. They offered a number of reasons for their decision, including:
- “The former wife’s testimony related to incidents removed in time, place and circumstances from the charge. It was thus only circumstantial evidence of the matters the jury was called on to decide.”
- “The prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value and the trial judge had no discretion to admit it.”
- “The trial judge paid insufficient attention to dissimilarities between the alleged similar acts and the offence charged.”
- “The former wife’s evidence described incidents more reprehensible than the actual charge before the court and had a serious potential for moral prejudice.”
- “It also had the potential to create significant reasoning prejudice by distracting the jury from their proper focus and by consuming undue time.” [1]
This same case might have been handled in a similar way in the U.S. before 1994, but after 1994 it could have been handled quite differently in some states. The reason for this is that in 1994 a Republican-dominated congress, voting against key Democrats who thought the new rules were unconstitutional, voted to allow propensity evidence in cases involving sex crimes, and Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. It remains extremely controversial. Some states accepted the new rules; some have rejected them, which they have the right to do under the Constitution, and others have modified them somewhat. Even with these new rules, however: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” [2] You can read about some feminist perspectives on evidentiary rules here.
These issues have also been very controversial in Scotland and the UK, where they appear to have changed their rules in the last 10 or 15 years to allow more propensity evidence, but I haven't found up-to-date information to confirm that yet. I haven’t found specific information about how particular countries in continental Europe handle this, either, but the one paper I did find on the subject says courts in continental Europe tend to shy away from categorical norms, apparently favoring to take each case by itself, and have a slightly different way of dealing with evidence of questionable probative value. Some countries also have a panel of judges or professional juries, which changes things significantly as well. Maybe someone from one these countries could share something more about the way propensity evidence is handled there.
Those who sympathize or identify with women, victims, and (in our case) students of spiritual teachers might feel like including more propensity evidence, while those who sympathize or identify with men, defendants, and spiritual teachers might feel like including less propensity evidence or none at all. If we include more propensity evidence, the likelihood of conviction would seem to go up, and women, potential victims, and students of spiritual teachers would seem to be safer. However, the more propensity evidence we include, the more likely it would seem that some innocent or relatively innocent men, defendants, and spiritual teachers would be wrongly convicted, wrongly smeared, or excessively smeared.
But is it a zero-sum game? It seems to me that there must be a way to increase safety for women, potential victims, and students while at the same time making it scrupulously fair for anyone accused of wrongdoing. But I don’t see how that could ever happen in our community unless we as the “jurors” are very much aware of all the issues involved and can differentiate cleanly between all the different types of evidence.
This appears to be a line of development unto itself—our ability to differentiate between fact and interpretation, our understanding of the many different kinds of evidence, our understanding of due process—and I don’t see that any discussion of it appears in Integral Life Practice or any other integral or spiritual literature. If it has been taken up by integral enthusiasts anywhere, I would love to see it.
But since it generally hasn’t been addressed in integral or spiritual circles and isn’t taught in schools aside from law school (at least in the U.S.), I don’t see any reason for people to assume that they have an integral or even a modern level of development along this particular line unless they have already spent some time studying it.
I think at times the debate has dipped pretty low along this particular line. But if we spend a little time studying these issues, I think we’ll do a lot better with things like this in the future, have a greater understanding of each other when we disagree, and the tone of the discussion will be greatly improved.
With love,
David
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
More on evidence
Posted October 14th, 2011 by Tara Aders in response to Thank you, KenThank you for helping to tease apart an important factor involved here. It's helpful that our thinking be clear when considering complex issues.
I want to add a couple of other perspectives that may at first seem to be somewhat in conflict with what you have said, but are intended to be both/and.
It seems to me that rules of evidence and determination of guilt in our court system are designed to prevent the power of the state (as represented by the court) from unjustly impinging upon the freedom of a citizen. (It's a whole other question as to whether that standard is actually applied consistently, especially for poor people and people of color.)
These precautions are in place because the government has the power to take people's money, put them in prison or otherwise restrict their freedom, and sometimes even execute them. By virtue of living in this country, we are 'involuntarily' under the jurisdiction of the courts and are bound by their authority.
Conversely, membership and leadership in spiritual/consciousness organizations like Integral is voluntary. Furthermore, it seems to me that the position of the spiritual teacher or leader is similar to the position of the court in the above paragraph, not similar to the position of the defendant. If that is the case, then the burden of extraordinary precaution should fall on the leaders of the groups.
Another thing to consider is that, whereas legal decision making relies heavily upon physical evidence and reasoning chains (which are often based on precedent, ie, earlier reasoning chains), the process in spiritual communities is much richer and more multi-dimensional than that. To me it seems that feedback from other channels of experience and other types of processing need to be included in the picture when complex problems arise.
I personally would consider a person's history of having had the same problem in the past to be one of those things that should be included. Also, I think that emotional, instinctual, or intuitive responses to a person's behavior and their public projection should also be considered. These are all important channels of information.
Many years ago I studied craniosacral work and had an amazing experience. While cradling the back of a person's head in my hands, I suddently sank into the sensation that my hands were floating in warm viscuous liquid. This lasted for about 10 minutes.The teacher confirmed that this is a 'normal' experience when doing that kind of energy work.
A few years later in graduate school I was taking an Ethics Class. The Ethics Code we were studying was designed primarily to prevent sexual and financial misconduct from being perpetrated upon psychotherapy clients. The class members were discussing examples of what was a good boundary and what wasn't. But I kept thinking--what kind boundaries would be relevant for a type of therapy where your hands end up floating in someone's brain. I'm guessing the same kind of ethics that would be appropriate to spiritual teachers.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
yes and...
Posted October 15th, 2011 by Meg Salter in response to Thank you, Kengreat to see the Canadian angle David!! Yes - rules of evidence vs blogosphere instant judgement. And also, if you/we were running Integral Life, what is our responsibility, positioning and promise to our members? and how do we monitor whatever implicit promise we make? ah.... ever the organizational angle. !
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
yes and...
Posted October 15th, 2011 by Meg Salter in response to Thank you, Kengreat to see the Canadian angle David!! Yes - rules of evidence vs blogosphere instant judgement. And also, if you/we were running Integral Life, what is our responsibility, positioning and promise to our members? and how do we monitor whatever implicit promise we make? ah.... ever the organizational angle. !
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Much Appreciated.
Posted October 15th, 2011 by BriXri50 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false
Let me start by saying three things: 1.) I don't know Marc in a personal or professional way. 2.) I appreciated Ken's open letter explaining what his thoughts and actions are/have been on the matter. 3.) I've learned something out of all of this.
I've had the pleasure of speaking with Ken once over the phone and learned more about accepting people where they are at but interacting with discernment in the same breath than I ever had elsewhere. Being kind doesn't mean being a pushover and Ken can do that, really well. So, I'd just like emphasize what Ken said about what we need to do as members/observers/participants (whatever fits) of this community/website.
Ken wrote, "I am recommending that each person ought to make up their own mind, using their own conscience and intuition."
From my perspective I had an intuition about Marc when I first started getting into Integral Theory three years ago. Something was off when I read Marc's work or watched videos of him. I didn't like something about him, as a person. I perceived it and avoided material that involved or included him in some way. Then I thought, "Something must be wrong with my perception." So, I started to go back and try to reread or rewatch (sp?) his work. I still wasn't able to engage with Marc and his material as I had hoped. But, I kept trying. Part of the reason I kept trying was because of his affiliation with this site and Ken in particular.
Then this whole fiasco became public. I winced when I started to read Joe Perez's blog posts and Robb Smith's detailed response to what happened. This really sucks for all parties involved. It must be horrible for the women, who it appears had experiences with Marc that can't be undone. It must leave those who know him best with more questions than answers. In some cases, those with business relationships tied to Marc, are forced to make choices. It must be absolutely crushing for him. I'm truly saddened for anyone connected to this most closely.
But, as an observer, it taught me two things: 1.) Trust your gut. If you pick up on something, you pick up on something. Acknowledge it and don't dismiss it. Your intuition might be letting you in on something important. 2.) Be careful who you associate with. I trust Ken. And, if he associates with Marc that implies that maybe I should trust Marc too. These two points created some serious cognitive dissonance. See, one reason (outside of my own self doubt) I kept going back to Marc’s work was because of his affiliation with IntegralLife and Ken. It appeared to me that I must be missing something that Integrallife and Ken are seeing in Marc. Really, all I had was a gut feeling that I wasn’t digging something about Marc. Not a well defined reason to ignore a person. Sadly, this whole mess just served to reinforce what my intuition had already told me.
So, I’m glad that Robb Smith and IntegralLife have chosen not to associate with Marc. Not because Marc’s a “bad person” or because Marc “deserves it.” I’m glad, because it distances this community from something very compelx and difficult but also very troublesome and potentially hazardous.
Like it or not the leaders of the Integral community are gatekeepers. They’re in the end responsible for the information they provide and the people that they expose us (the end users) to. They are implicitly saying when they work with someone, “S/He’s O.K.” And, if that person turns out not to be O.K.? Well, what do we do now?
In the end as consumers and adults we are responsible for our own actions and like Ken said we have to make our own assessment and subsequent choices based off what he know. Luckily I don’t know Marc personally so the decision is fairly easy, I won’t look for his work anymore. I’m sure it’s a much harder call for people who engaged with him on a more intimate level and now feel injured in a litany of ways. I don’t envy Ken or anyone else who new Marc personally and who now have to make difficult decisions that I can’t begin to understand.
Take care, and I hope everyone is able to make conscious choices based of the information available.
~B
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
gatekeepers
Posted October 16th, 2011 by Meg Salter in response to Much Appreciated.you put your finger on it; being associated with Int Life is a de facto 'stamp' / endorsement. And what people do/ say reflects on the larger whole. Meg
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Yes indeed.
Posted October 17th, 2011 by BriXri5 in response to gatekeepersYes, it does. This double edge sword is one we must tread. This line where we come in contact with one another becomes harder to tread when it's user generated content in question. Discernment here is crucial if for no other reason than the fact that users can just pay to be here. Which isn't as stringent a process (hopefully) as being asked by those running the site to contribute content. This thread of responses to Ken's letter serve as a bitter reminder of this reality.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
gatekeepers
Posted October 16th, 2011 by Meg Salter in response to Much Appreciated.you put your finger on it; being associated with Int Life is a de facto 'stamp' / endorsement. And what people do/ say reflects on the larger whole. Meg
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 2 members found this useful.
Dissapointment
Posted October 9th, 2011 by Federico ParraNow I really know I don't pertain to this community.
Blessings and farewell,
Federico