Failure to Engage the Mainstream

Hi Astrid

I think you are correct.  The term “mindful communication” is a beautiful and strong one.

I have started giving some thought to the criteria for such communication and doing a little bit of research.  This had led me to the following article which I would like to share with you.

It is entitled “Me Talk Pretty” by Sally Kempton and is all about how you can change the world, or at least your experience of it, by becoming conscious of the words coming out of your mouth.

There are a number of key points which struck me:

Right speech is one of the pillars of the Noble Eightfold Path.

As everything is made out of different densities of vibration, words are not merely signifiers but actual powers.

One should spend a day eavesdropping on oneself.

It helps to asks yourself: “What makes me say what I say?”

Before you speak ask yourself: “Is this true? Is this kind? Is this necessary?”

Words can transform our consciousness.

Words that vibrate at a higher level of resonance can change our inner state as well.

Words can affect the environment around us.

Speech should come out of the silent place behind words.

When thinking about mindful communication we also need to consider such issues as interrupting, speaking for too long, respecting confidentiality, listening to what is being said with a non-judgmental and accepting attitude, engaging in conversation with a sense of curiosity, connecting with the other as a unique being, noticing how one’s feelings influence how one reacts to the other, etc. etc.

Applying all of the above to online communication and communication across altitudes is also necessary and no doubt there are further criteria which could be considered in these areas.

Astrid, you mention starting an essay entitled “Integral communication”.

Perhaps it is time to fetch it out of the drawer!

With best wishes

Linda

My original blog post started off as looking at the dangers of the individual practitioner not engaging with the mainstream and at possible ways of combating this.

These issues that apply to the individual obviously also apply to the community.

I am not qualified to speak on behalf of Integral Life but what follows are my observations on how the integral movement is engaging with the mainstream.

The books “Integral Life Practice” and “The Integral Vision” and the language used in both make the concepts of Integral theory very accessible to the mainstream.  The advice given is practical, and both books are an invitation to all to at least cognitively access integral principles and then begin to apply them if the desire is there.

Integral Life has a presence on Twitter, there is a live feed of all comments posted here, and I too find Core Integral is a wonderful attempt at reaching out.

In a recent letter sent out by Ken Wilber regarding Integral Life, Ken’s invitation is another example of this openness.

Some people criticized the fact that the letter was not filtered and sent to paying members as well.  That is one way of looking at the matter, but if we take another perspective we can see it as a means of keeping even paying members up to date with what is out there and with how Integral Life is reaching out to non-paying members and the mainstream.

The letter was an excellent example of cross-altitudinal communication and our response to it can certainly teach us something about ourselves.

Personally, my initial response to the letter was a slight pulling back at the “sales-pitch” language, until I realized that this pulling back was probably pointing me to a shadow aspect within myself.  I no longer enjoy using the language of orange/green when trying to sell a concept and need to accept that that is actually appropriate when the need arises.  I might have transcended it but I still need to include it more. (I recently had to deal with estate agents. Encouraged by my husband to use their “language” and “techniques” I was far more successful in my dealings with them, even though it felt slightly uncomfortable at the time)

Integral Life does have a spirit of generosity and I say this because I have personally been on the receiving end of this.

From what I can gather, you have a great interest in how technology is influencing culture, and if I understand you correctly, your main issue with this reaching out process revolves around open source.  You mention elsewhere that it has been said that embracing such methods is “green”.  That may be so, but if integral transcends and includes green then it should obviously also incorporate such methods.  To what extent “open source” is being used, I am not able to say and perhaps someone from Integral Life would better be able to comment.  

Terry Patten in his article “Exploring Big Questions in the Integral World” also makes the interesting observation that “if any piece of IP is essential to the progress of the Integral movement, Integralists will find their way round its constraints”!

Terry Patten, in this same article, makes such a valuable point:

“Both purity and openness are open values worth respecting.  Either too much openness or too much purity can do damage.  So both principles need to be respected, within reason.  Staying true to one’s principles is essential, and yet refusing to associate with people can erode the spirit of generosity and collegiality so essential to building a movement.”

As always, it is a question of balance, and I am of the opinion that Integral Life is doing an excellent job at attempting to maintain this balance.

In the letter mentioned earlier, Ken states, “The projects, partner organization, academic journals and books, blogs and forums all have a quality checked by me to personally guarantee that my Integral model is being used accurately.” This helps to prevent “misinterpretations of its leading ideas, resulting in less than truly Integral results”. This demonstrates the awareness of the need for purity.

For this reason I believe “open source” only would be either/or thinking and would be green.  We cannot focus on the content at the expense of framing what integral is. We have to go beyond this if we are to have a turquoise code of ethics. 

At the moment on Integral Life, there are contributions which only paying members can access, but at the same time an increasing number of such past contributions are continually been made available to non-paying members.  This is to be commended.  

Getting back to the theme of my original blog, Terry Patten reminds us that communicating effectively with the mainstream is a collective as well as an individual mission. Both “Top-down” and “Bottom-up” approaches are necessary, and this is where we as individuals come in.

As individuals there is a need for self-responsibility.  We need to define our own unique roles and think about how we can be effective in producing change, a change that “transforms the lives and life conditions of large numbers of people”.