In order to dispel the notion that Zaadzsters are a bunch of New-Age wimps, milquetoasts, and navel-gazing wanna-bes, I have taken upon myself to release an album of 'kick out the jams' rock-n-roll the likes of which the spiritual scene has not seen or heard from since... well... never!!

So put away your sitars, your tablas, your crystals, and get ready to let your chakras spin like never before. For here are Samsara's Greatest Hits, the latest offering by yours truly, under the name, URIZEN.

And, if you look closely, in the true spirit of Zaadz, you will notice artwork supplied by C4Chaos (our own Rommel DeLeon) and Melissa Davis, another exceptionally gifted photographer. Together (speaking for C4 and Melissa) we hope to inspire other Zaadsters to use their new friendships for the mutual upliftment of one another. Let's change the world by helping each other, by complementing one another, by spreading the word about one another, by sharing our music, our photos, our songs, our poetry.

There is truly no telling what we can do. I swear! If we--as Brian's vision holds true--can empower one another not only through words and prayers, but through the choices we make with our dollars and cents we can make monumental changes in how we experience the world. Blessings we never thought imaginable can come our way. All we need to do is support one another in the gifts we have to share--the gifts that taken together magnify the Glory of One and All.

With Love & Hope,

David Jon Peckinpaugh

Certainly there is a lot of hype in this-world. I mean, who isn't eager to 'push' something one people like a drug?

Sometimes you may be left thinking that  you may just need to shout in order to get your voice heard above the din and roar of the masses. I often wonder if some spiritual teachers (gurus, if you will) might not use the hype-machine in order to attract people to a way of life 'beyond the hype.' When in Rome, as they say...

So how do you get people's attention? What if you have a product, a piece of art, a book, a teaching, an insight that you want to share with others because you believe in the virtue of it beyond a shadow of a doubt? How do you get people to give you even a glance; especially when there are so many other people 'hawking' various wares?

Perhaps it comes down to this: that there is a certain inherent magnetism built into those products and services that are genuine--that are the Real Deal! I trust that if someone is hawking a product that has no ground to stand on other than its hype, then that product will fail. On the other hand, if a product has imbuded within it real passion--the juice of the Human Spirit--true heart and soul, then that product will eventually generate its own sort of hype. People will spread the word, one-by-one. Like Zaadz. Like a good movie that rises to the top in spite of a lack of majour studio backing. Like a compilation of music that seems to come out of nowhere. Like whenever ther authenticity of a human-being shines without apology or justification.

After all, how can you hype 'what is?' Doesn't IT just speak for itself!!??

Every parent--every mother and father, as well as grandfather and grandmother--feels that their little child is the most precious in all the world. 'Isn't he just the cutest?' 'Isn't she just the most adorable child you have ever seen.'

And in that moment there is truth to those high-falutin' statements. Right then and there that is the most beautiful child in all the world. There is no exaggeration in that. There is no hype (at least not until we doll our little girls up in sequins and lipstick, heels and stockings at the ripe old age of 4 and send them off into a world of pageants and competitive beauty-making!!).

But how can every child be the most beautiful? Or, for that matter, how can damn near every movie be the blockbuster of the year--One of the Ten Best! How is it possible that so much seems to get so hyped?

Maybe because every 'thing' is someone's child. Maybe we are enthusiastic about what we are involved because those are our babies too? Couldn't it be that we hype our philosophies (Integral seems to be the latest getting a ton of hype--some deserved, some maybe not so deserved), our ideologies, our insights, our revelations, our songs, and our paintings, our books and our photos because we have poured something of our self--our maybe even Self!--into those creatures and creations?

Maybe that is why we are all so 'over-the-top' about so many things: because to us it is the most beautiful baby in all the world; to us it is the most precious thing there is... and that is just as it should be, don't ya think?

(Warning: This post may ruin your day (especially if you see Ken Wilber as incapable of any error in judgment or action.) Further check the following links for context and background--Ken Wilber as Wyatt Earp which prompted the following discussions found here at C4's Zaadz blog)

I have to trust myself here. After all, if you, as a person, are unable to trust your own awareness--to rely upon consciousness through you, specifically as consciousness is registered in the forms of thoughts, emotions, hunches, intuitions, gut-feelings--and the like--then what the f*&k do you have? You got nothing! If you cannot rely upon what is arising in your awareness right now--immediately (should I say, im-mediately... meaning, without mediation... ergo, im-mediate)--then you are destined to be little more than the pawn constantly referencing 'others' in order to know what you feel... .what you should think... how you should be, etc. and so forth.

This whole point is what kind of pisses me off about the Wilber essay fiasco and the resultant discussions propagating all over the Web. Ken plays a little trick on people. Master Wilber and his gamesmanship. For instance, someone's initial reaction is that Ken is acting like a prick. Yeah... a prick. But then it is stated that this was a shadow-exercise enacted by the Master himself. Suddenly people are recanting their initial reactions and confessing with awe and adoration just how masterful Ken was/is.

But get this peeps. What has Ken really served to do? Ken has actually served to sever people from 'trusting themselves.' Ken's exercise is an installation of 'doubt' into people who wondered--initially anyways--where the civility was in  Ken's comments.

Taken to extremes this ''perform like a prick" and then call it a "test" later on can totally erode a person's ability to trust their own most basic intelligence. Imagine yourself walking down the street, engaging with people at work, sharing time with your friends and family and having to wonder what is and is not a "test" ... a "Master's ploy" to bait you into being seduced by your own so-called "projections." Imagine how burdensome life would. Imagine how ... literally now... take these words to heart... imagine how schizophrenic you would become.

If you are not able to rely upon your own intelligence--as you are in-formed by a Consciousness at once Universal, as well as peculiar to your own circumstances--and instead are made to rely upon the intelligence of an abstract Master sitting in a loft somewhere thousands of miles away, typing out eloquent passages made to at once seduce you, as well as convince you that you are "projecting" dick-headed behaviour on someone who is just baiting you... then what can you rely upon?

It's sort of like someone creating the image of a spade, wanting you to believe it is a spade... and then saying.. 'Aha... gotcha... it is just a fake spade and you projected the image of a real spade where there wasn't one. Surprise. You can't trust yourself!"

(You can implant either 'uncivility' and/or 'dickheadedness' into where you see the word 'spade' above).

Further imagine that you are involved in a community in your daily affairs and you are witnessing someone act in an in-appropriate manner to others around you (defining inappropriate as offensive in someway... defining offensive... as rude... defining rude as uncivil... or uhm, I suppose... obnoxious). Now, your initial reaction is to think what a 'jerk' this person is acting like. But now that you have had some recent 'shadow-work' done you are skeptical of your own most im-mediate reaction. So you don't respond to the situation. You fail to act in the community. You separate your-self out and reflect on your own reactions as if they are merely and only 'projections.'

In short, you have alienated yourself from a communal obligation to act in an inter-suibjective way. You have turned into the solipsistic nightmare of an extremely subjective analysis of social relations. And it is all thanks to the Master's ploys.

(stay tuned... )

I think it is hilarious how you can use a single source to argue both sides of well... an argument. In the comments to the previous post of 6/19 (Eat Lead Wyatt!!) Mu suggested that 'projection' was the nature of the Universe and that therefore Ken wasn't doing anything that anyone of us wasn't doing in the first place. In short, we are all 'projecting.' And we are projecting all the time. The mind is a drama-making machine that will make you weep like no movie you have ever seen before.

And while the Buddha also said--or so I have heard from others, as I haven't personally talked to the Buddha in at least 2,500 years Gregorian Standard Time--that we are to 'be a lamp unto ourselves,' I do mostly agree with Mu's comments. Yes, we are quite possibly projecting mind-stuff 24-7 (well, unless you one of the lucky few in the civilized world who stil accesses deep-dreamless sleep--the causal state--and do so without the assistance of your friend Ambien!). So Mu gets no disagreement from there on that matter. What I do have a hard-on about--metaphorically speaking of course!--is that someone in a position of authourity and leadership would artificially create a situation, include his closest 200 friends in on the nature of the test/joke, and then unleash his little 'litmus test' for 2nd-tier on the blogosphering public... out and into the Integral Commons, if you will.

Do I Have A Liscence To F*&k With Your Head?

In all honesty, I don't understand for the life of me why if Ken wants to play 'shrink' he didn't just go ahead and get a degree somewhere so he could be licensed to practice actual therapy---and group therapy no less! If he wanted to diagnose a bunch of people with 'shadow material' (and man, what a profound insight that is, eh? as if we don't all have shadow material, duh? well, maybe not some of us... like ME!!) then why not sit in a plush loft somewhere in New York City or San Francisco and play 'psychiatrist' with some willing patients who actually show up in a wholly voluntary manner. Besides, you'd like awfully dapper in a Tweed jacket Ken.

But no, I guess that would be too easy. Way too easy. Nope. Ken appears to want to play psychiatrist to the whole frickin' human population! The whole red, purple, organge, green, yellow, turquiose and teal lot of us get the privilege of a diagnosis by Ken (but not just Ken, I have had my 'over-generalizing moments, too, I must confess). "Here," Ken seems to be insinuating, "watch me magically diagnose the blogosphere as exhibiting 'shadow' material that needs to be addressed by... uhm... all of you... for us to ever proceed further along the Yellow Brick Road to the wonderful Land of Integral-Oz."

Is This Offensive?

I do know that in some states it is a serious offense to practice therapy without a license.

Ah, but anything goes on the Net (just check out all the porn!). It is still sort of a 'Wild West' approach here on the World-Wide Web. There are, as of yet, no thought-police patrolling, lurking, watching for unacceptable postings that need to be deleted for fear of serious mental infections wreaking havoc on the 'productivity of the workers.' As far as I know, except for China, there is no overt censorhsip taking place on the Net. Big Brother ain't caught up to us yet! And while there is some virtue in that--such as our being able to get our 'virtual 40 acres and a mule,' there are also problems associated with so much information being presented in so abstract a manner.

For instance, here is Ken Wilber--an otherwise brilliant authour and theorist--suddenly practicing group therapy (and involuntary group therapy at that!) while not being trained or liscensed to practice anything as far as we know.

Here's The Deal...

I can use the same argument against Ken Wilber that he uses against his so-called 'critics' (or more properly, against those whose voice is not wholly affirmative regarding his work, I-I, and the recent emergence of a 'cult of personality' that he has helped foster and encourage... I mean, what do you really want to be when you grow up Ken, a therapist, a guru, a poet, a post-metaphysician, a philosopher, an artist, a Red Bull swilling former Valedictorian & High School Class President, a think-tank administrator, a professor... huh?... what's it going to be... make up your mind already... would you?). When Ken argues that his critics don't really know him, and few have met him personally, they are liable to 'project' all sorts of nonsense onto him. That if they knew him like his friends do (and even some of his friends admit this as well) that they would see their 'projections' for what they are.

Now, that could be true. I can accept that if you haven't had time to personally engage someone in an intimate way you probably don't really understand who they are (and even intimacy is no assurance of understanding, right all you married folk??). Anyways, my point is that if Ken can use that to argue that his critics make errors based upon a lack of familiarity with their 'subject'--one Ken Wilber--then Ken is making an even greater error in not-knowing the intricate details and private workings of the psyches of the thousands of people he has included in his little one-off psychological experiment (sort lof like Ken's own Dharma Initiative, for all you Lost fans out there). He has no idea what their own personal struggles are. He has no inclination what their own private and personal hell has or has not been. He is totally clueless about all of those 'differences that make a difference' to borrow a phrase made popular by the late Gregory Bateson. And yet... and yet... with complete and total hubris (is that too strong a signifier?) he attempts to be able to systematically diagnose thousands of people with just the writing of one letter in response to his critics. Now that is some magic! To hell with David Blaine. From a distance Ken can diagnose your neurosis based upon 'how you respond to his words.'

That is some feat. 

But there it is nonetheless.  

Maybe I am just  a simpleton. Maybe I don't see all the complexities involved in a particular situation. Maybe subtelty and nuance is lost on me. Then again, maybe certain things are unnecessarily complexified by others. Maybe some things are way more obvious than some of us make them out to be.

Take Ken Wilber's expletive laden rant against his critics. Do you take the nuanced position bourne out of wanna-be Wyatt Earp's justification following his rant? Or do you take the obvious position? If you take the nuanced position--which I am biased to call an overly-nuanced position, bordering on myseterianism, like 'Ohhhh... what is Ken up to now??'--and you were to apply Ken's rationale to your daily life how would that affect you? Would you be able to manage you relations better? Is the effect an improvement of your capacity for 'care and consciousness' as one might put it in I-I speak?

For example, Ken argues that there is necessary shadow-work that needs to be done within the blogosphere. His contention is that his rant will expose people's true shadow material; that our reactions to his words will reveal what we are personally projecting onto him. But what if this is not the case at all? What if something far more obvious, though so far unspoken, is actually the case?

The Era Of The Befuddled Onlooker

For starters, let me say that here at Zaadz I have not noticed one overly aggressive, 'How dare he? response to Ken's rant. Not one (and if you see any let me know, though these last couple of piece of mine may now qualify in your eyes!). Of course folk like Geoffrey Falk are still quite contentious, but when hasn't he been contentious towards Ken? Come on!

My point is this: that Ken's rant was overstated. He took a couple of boisterous critics and then--with one broad, over-generalizing stroke--swept the whole canvas of critics to his work with that one stroke. He included people that are not necessarily exhibiting any animosity towards his work, but just have some questions (like Frank Visser, like yours truly, and others whom I will not mention here for fear of exposing them to Ken's further Manjushri-like wrath).  ; o )

What then are the kinds of response I have seen to Ken's rant? The majourity seem to fall into one category: shock. Maybe I could say, befuddled... or confused... or flabberghasted. The majourity of responses to Ken's rant that I witnessed in the immediate aftermath were not trying to fill Wyatt's Buns of Steel with more lead. The majourity were saddened by it. That's what I saw. That's what I noticed.

Confused Former Admirer Recants Devotion

I saw admirers confused. People seeming to wonder if this is the person they have been looking up to, if this is the guy they have been respecting, and how come his speech has become so degrading and disrespectful? And beneath that confusion and initial sense of befuddlement, if you find projections then I am with you.

The difference is that I don't see the negative-side of projections. I don't see people projecting their own anger ands hatred and vitriol onto Ken for his rant. I don't see people fighting fire with fire. What I saw were sincere and noble individuals wondering, 'Man, is that the kind of dialogue we want in our Community? Is that what it means to be Integral? And if so, then I am not sure I want any?'

Positive Projection Of Communal Values? Yes!

I did see, then, people projecting. I saw people projecting their values. About what kind of Community they want to be a part of. And what kinf od communication-style will foster and encourage the kind of Community that they want to be a part of. I saw people questioning an authourity figure (like it or not Ken, you are in that role... self-chosen... appointed... or otherwise). And what struck me so deeply in the initial hours after Ken's rant was unleashed into the blogospher was how many people were 'taken aback' by Ken's Wyatt Earp persona.

How do we want to talk to each other? Doesn't that determine the kind of Community we are going to build? If we speak in degrading tones and a derogatory manner towards others how is that going to build trust and kinship? Can it? Or maybe that isn't what some of us want?

Maybe Ken is right in what he says: he wants to use Manjushri's sword of a sharp-tongue to separate out those who are 'with him' vs. those who are 'against him.' (which, if  I check my Spiral Dynamics dictionary puts Ken in the same ranks as George W. Bush and his polarizing of world politics vis-a-vis the 'axis of evil' and 'you are either with us or against us' mentality... can you say, 'Blue Meme').

Does that mean that I think Ken should invite his critics over for dinner? Well, why the hell not!! You know what they say about your enemies: Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer!

Post-Modern Orgy For Critics

Of course I don't think that Ken needs to have a slumber-party with his most vocal critics. But if Ken is going to set himself up as (or other people are going to put him in the role of) Uber-Chief of All Things Integral then he must understand that just as religion and spirituality need to accept postmodern truths so too does he: that anytime you set ups such a massive meta-narrative (a Master Narrative for The Digital Age, if you will) then you are calling for shots to be taken at you.

People have an increasing resistance to such Grand Narratives. And the more you seek to include and incorporate the more you open yourself to criticism (you remember that IOU Principle in Ken's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: that every holon--even Integral Theory, even Ken Wilber--issues an IOU to the Kosmos... that every holon is incomplete and/or uncertain?). So there cannot help but be gaps. And to me, the more you try and cram into your system... your philosophy... your theory... the more that the gaps (the Emptiness) will try to reassert itself.

In other words, the Kosmos may well act through critics to remind everyone who would otherwise be seduced into believing that Integral Theory is ... well... All That!

Criticism is part of life. From early age we are receiving a constant stream of 'feedback' from the world on our actions, our attitudes, our creations, our movements, speech, words, gestures. The list goes on and on. When you have you not experienced someone's disapproving look? When have you not heard the skeptical inquiries about a choice you have made? When have you not heard those voices chattering amongst themselves within the stream of your own consciousness?

So what's the big deal? Someone is critical of you, of what you have done... or not done? So F*&in What! Who cares? Do you care? Does it matter? Do you need everyone's approval? Does everyone need to fawn adoration of you? Does everyone need to confess how 'brilliant' you are? Do you want to hear everyone tell you that you are the "Einstein of consciousness studies?"

Rules Of Rock

I happen to be the lead-singer, as well as guitar-player, in a rock-n-roll cover band playing the rock standouts from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and beyond. We end up doing everything from Pearl Jam to Pink Floyd; Nirvana to Nugent, Lynyrd Skynyrd to Limp Bizkit... and let me tell you... you hear some shit when you are playing. If you are a *&*&* and fade under the pressure of someone not liking you (and shit, who the hell is deluded enough to suppose that a) everyone should like/agree with them, and b) everyone should have to express their liking/agreeing) then you are only going to impair your own abilities. In other words, if you can't handle criticism or feedback then you are confessing your own weakness.

Playing in bars and clubs where some rough folk gather builds in you some awfully tough skin. Like I said, if you can't handle a rude comment--someone remarking on your clothing, your hair, your voice, your song selection, yo Momma!--then... well... just go home to Momma.

My point in all this--as you may already know--is that when someone like Ken Wilber goes 'Whaaa... Whaaa... about his critics and how they are unworthy... and they don't get him... they misunderstand him.... they misrepresent him... they are wrong... and they might as well be 'suckin' his dick' rather than writing books... that he is behaving in an extremely un rock-n-roll fashion and manner. Why not have the manly fortitude to just stand there and take it, smile back, and continue on your way, with your next song?

You Know What They Say About Shit Stickin'

Perhaps it is because there is some truth in what the critics say--especially the one's like Meyerhoff (there is actually an mp3 floating around on the web of a monologue Ken delivers regarding Meyerhoff's criticism). After all, I know from a personal perspective that if something carries no weight for me then I don't even waste my time responding. If you know it is not true then why bother... why spend any time... why waste your breath, right?

You don't defend against a lie do you?

Ohhh... but like I said, if there is some truth to what is being stated then your own psyche will demand that you become 'caught up in it.' If only because there is some 'tie that still binds' there. If only because there is still some 'hook of truth' that snags you and reels you in so that the most direct evidence for something going on is the fact that 'one is protesting too much.' 

So why the need to refute unless you feel threatened in some way by it? Why get into a spat with critics while the next song remains unsung. Not to mention the fact that people came to hear the music, didn't they? They didn't come to the party to listen to the hecklers--even though there may be some entertainment value in the obnoxious nay-sayer? Just let the Integral Band play on (notice, I said 'Band!). As you know, that means all of us--including the drunken hecklers who shout from the back of the bar, never making an ass out of the band, only an ass out of themselves.

Trust me.

It's not just Ken Wilber. The same could be said to apply to each and everyone of us to greater and lesser degrees. We carry projections around, like so many crosses we are burdened to bear. And no, not all of them are light for Chris' sakes!!

I think it is interesting to consider how each one of us deals with carrying the 'projections' of others. For me, personally speaking, I tend to thrive on someone 'projecting negativity' my way. Negative projections feed me, inspire me, empower me. Tell me that I am incapable, that I can't, that I am not cut out for it, and I am fuled by a raging fire to show you just how wrong you are. I love proving people wrong in that way.

On the other hand, I seem to crumble under the weight of too many positive projections. I don't seem to thrive under the burden of 'Great Expectations' (and maybe few do, because we are, after all, human). I like to play the role of the Underdog--the one who is never even noticed, the one in last place, the one who comes out of nowhere and leaves people saying, 'Where the hell did he come from?'

The hardest thing to do in sports is to 'repeat.' Once you win the championship everyone is out to get you. You have a target on your back. It's evolution baby!! In a hyper-competitive climate people are constantly wanting to test their skills against the best--the World Champs, the Reigning King, the Lords and Gods. It is even spoken of in Greek Mythology where Atlas and the Titans seek to overthrow and vanquish the Gods. And you might say that the Era of Modernity has been eerily similar to that of the Titans seeking to overthrow the Gods.

But what are you left with when you take the Top-Most Rung Of the Ladder?

Aren't you left with people's projections? Aren 't you left with people wanting to make you their own personal Saviour? Aren't you left with the projections of the God on your back, yet without the capacity of the Gods to shoulder that weight? Aren't you left to be a literal Atlas, damned to support the Heavens and the Earth--the Kosmos anyone?--upon your shoulders fopr eternity?

What a burden that must be. Truly, what a burden that must be. Imagine the projections that--for literary sake--God receives. Imagine all the shit He gets tossed His way. Imagine all that She is expected to do. Imagine how a simple human-being would likely crumble under the weight of all of those projections.

Think about it, please. Think about the weight of people's great expectations and how they want you to 'save the world' for them (or at the very least, save their world). Think about what a burden it is when people are not accepting responsibility for their lives but have made you out to be some 'King-figure of the God-realm' that is going to solve everything. Imagine how brutal it must be to have to take all of that upon your mortal personhood, to shoulder that.

Imagine that Christ is Cruicified not by his enemies, but by His disciples.

Rock-stars crumble because people cannibalize off from them. I have been to my fair share of shows. I have been on tour buses with friends. I have seen the unseemly side up close and personal. I know the burdens--the secret burdens--that the overly admired must bear. I see the eager looks in people's eyes as they scan the scene looking for that 'one person' whom they have projected so much goodness and greatness upon. And I have seen the Rock-star try to hide, walking with his shoulders hunche, slouching out of the club, hoping not to be noticed.

Why? Because he is already carrying too much weight. His fans are already 'loving him to death.' The whole world's adoration is already suffocating him to the point where he literally wants to blow up.

That's the only thing that can save him: the 'loved to death' Rock-star's salvation lives in an explosion of Herculean proportions. A blow-up. He does it to 'save himself' from the love. It is not the pressure of the critics. It is NOT the pressure of the negative (as the negative invites challenge in the masculine). It is the pressure of the love and the adoration that if explosion doesn't save him will lead to an implosion that will immolate him.

But we don't see this, do we? We think love and admiration are 'all-good.' We assume that the more we are loved the better. And yet, for a man--for the masculine in man (or woman for that matter) too much love can result in a suffocating pressure that can feel so much like Un-Freedom and Death that the masculine has to 'blow his whole fucking world up in order to save it!'

The feeling is still with me this morning. I have to go a little--or a lot!--further into this whole 'positive projection' business. One of the reasons is because the consensus seems to be that the 'problem lies with negative projections,' i.e., that people need to own their shadows. Well, I am hear to say that people need to own their Light too!

There are just as many devastating, destructive, and debilitating consequences from not owning one's own Light as there are from not owning one's own shadow. While we are all quite familiar with the consequences and ramifications of the latter (shadow-projection) we are not that familiar with the former (Light-projection). But that needs to change. It is time for us to ask why we elevate certain others into an exalted frame of reference we suppose is reserved for the few.

Distancing The Dark

Yes, of course we can take things that we would prefer to not accept about ourselves--i.e., potentials and psychic presences that we hope to divest ourselves by casting them onto the backs of the Other. Indeed, we all know about the 'pot calling the kettle black.' There is nothing unfamiliar about that! In fact, it is understandable that we might want to get away from our own personal 'dark-side,' or just refuse to acknowledge that we all have the potential for harbouring the toxic slew of ignorance, greed, and malice. I mean, those are not pretty and lovely little traits to have are they?

So, purify yourself by seeing them in everyone else. 'He did this...' 'She does that...' They are always like this...' 'It's them... they did it... it is part of their race... creed... ethnicity... sexual orientation.... gender.... yadda... yadda... yadda.' Been there, right? Own your shadow. Fess up to your capacity for the Dark--for creating it, for maintaining it, for spreading it thick and thin.

How Does Dark Come About Though?

This gut of mine is telling me that there is a reciprocal relationship between negative projections and positive projections: that the projection of the dark is also denial of the light. I am wondering if it is at all possible to have the presence of shadow material is there has not already been a previous denial of the Light. For instance, what if the shadow of our so-called cynicism and critical attitude toward others is but the denial of a Light that is Wisdom? What if each shadow element is but the facet of a Diamond (ala A. H. Almaas, I suppose) like Awareness and Luminousity that is our True Nature? What if we can arrive at our Gifts through the shadows? What if we can find our Wordsworthian 'clouds of glory' there?

On one level a 'shadow' is only created by an obstruction of the Light. For there to be shadows there must be Light. Light must be Present for shadows to appear. So, when we talk about shadows we have already implicated the Presence of Light.

Now, when someone is putting forth a suggestion about how to deal with one's 'shadow' it doesn't necessarily need to mean that one needs to engage and treat one's so-called 'shadow' as if it were real. In other words, you don't have to 'objectify the shadow' and make it real when all that shadow is is but your orientation to the Source of Light.

Where Is The Source Of Light: Alpha/Origin-Light & Omega/End-Light

For example, if you put the Light in front of you (techno-utopianists, future-shockers, living for tomorrow people, planners, goal-setters) then you are creating a huge shadow behind you--a shadow that others may walk in; a shadown that the past (which is why techno-freaks are always tearing down yesterday) is forced to abide in because of your orientation to the Source.

On the flip-side are the Retro-Romantics who place the Source in the past--and to which the future is then made to abide in the shadows (apocalypse, government conspiracy, environmental melt-down, by which I mean the extreme versions). For those who orient to the Light as if the Light were behind their considerable shadow is projected into the future.

In both cases--techno-utopians or retro-romantics--there is a generation of a vast shadowland that both the past and the future are thereby perceived to exist in. Either the past is the Dark Time... or the future is the Dark Time. Both are realms of shadow-projection--just in different directions, temporally speaking.

Living Without Shadow

Immediately I assume that the question now turns to 'Can one live without shadow... completely?'

Well, not if the Source of Light is outside of you!! If you perceive that the Light is an 'other' (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Allah, God, Jehovah, Maharishi, Sri Sri Sri Sri Bobba Lula, Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen, Adi La-di-Da) then you will personally create and maintain shadows in your life, your personal relationships... your world. You will have to then deal with the consequences of having perceived the Light as 'external' from where you AS THAT now abide.

The same goes for perceiving the Light in an 'other-time' (as Heaven, as Utopia, as Golden Age, as New Age, as 2012, or whatever). When you do so you literally create shadow-matter by your assumption of the Light as existing elsewhere.

But what happens when the Light is You, in You, as You, and You Are That? What happens when you realize that the Source is your constant Illumination. That the Light is not greater in him or her, or this or that, or then or there? What happens when the Light is vertical shaft of Glory that connects Heaven & Earth right where you Is?

That's why you see the paintings of the Saints with Halos. They cast no shadows, nor do we, when our whole person is aligned with the Source, the Light, the Luminousity that Alone Is.

You will not know the Kingdom of Heaven "Till your body is full of Light."

I have heard that phrase since I was a child. Growing up in a traditional Judeo-Christian home in small town America--Methodist version--I was subjected to pointers and indicators that I didn't always fully comprehend. I was often left wondering if one should assume that by 'body' it was meant to indicate our physical body only? I was confused. I didn't know what was meant by the term 'body.' Did I need to eat and consume light to the point where I was nothing but light? Should I be a light-addict fixin' and jone'sn for my next hit, until I was completely consumed and swallowed up by this substance that I couldn't get enough of--that I wasn't supposed to get enough of until I was wholly transfigured?

I'd go and stand outside as a child and immerse myself in sunlight. But this 'body' only blocked that light. This body didn't absorb it fully. The light, actually, I came to learn from reading Encyclopedias was 'reflected off the physical body'--which is what allowed others to be able to see me. I was visible through a process of light-reflected.

I wished that as a child---remember, this is 10 and 11 years old here--that if light reflected allowed me to be visible in the awareness of others... then... what if... by chance (or law... or rule... or principle) light absorbed completely allowed me to be invisible.

Charting The Path

I was totally convinced that I was onto something (and also believe that every child is inherently of the scientific spirit--experimenting, inquiring, exploring) with this insight. I knew it was true. If I could somehow absorb more light than was reflected then the visible would become increasingly invisible. I also knew that this meant that the visible didn't necessarily disappear. I knew this. It was just a matter of my trying to figure out a process to make it happen--or being blessed by Grace such that the process was presented to me by Invisible-Light-Dense Source(s).

How I began to make headway in this is a 'long and winding road' as one former Beatle put it. I made some progress through studying the mechanics of sight. I realized that we don't see what things are.

(Ok, please bear with me. I swear this is all scientific and above-board. I am not trying to get 'out there' on ya and confuse the masses with some overly dense ponderings. This is just what I discovered in my studies, and have had confirmed through sources as hard-core as they get).

Like I said, we don't see what people, things, places are. We see, instead, what people, places, and things are not. The visible is the reflected, the disowned, the non-absorbed, the un-integrated, the opposite of isness (it's the not-isness that we see, if you will).

Of course this is tricky business because the exact opposite is what we are taught in this-world. We are taught--conditioned may be a better word--to believe that every 'thing' is what is visible. But the Truth is more like we are lost and con-fused in the visual realm of reflected light--a literal Dream-world, a virtual Matrix!

And everyone who believes that 'what you see is what is' is contributing to the Grand Delusion. For what is seen is like the inverse of isness: and that's why we instinctively know it is wrong to judge by appearances alone; that is why we are enranged by the superficiality of the world. We intuitively re-member that isness is the In-visible. Isness is In-the-visible.

1) The Truth is not popular.

2) Whenever a popular position is formed it is time to move on (as popularity tends to form around a prior 'truth,' not the Present Truth).

3) Welcome to the new herd, same as the ol' herd (in other words, group dynamics tend to have a very pernicious character and quality to them--which is why relative to groups the 'cliques' of high-school never seem to know any end).

4) When an institution--any institution forms around the Truth--know that it is no longer the Truth.

5) In time the group, the institution, the clique--no matter how lofty the principles originally embodied--becomes self-serving (the Truth loses out to group preservation).

6) The Truth will set you free, yes, and also have the side-effect of pretty much alienating you from the rest of society.

7) Don't expect people to 'get it.' They won't--even when they think they do they haven't.

8) Institutions are mausoleums for Truth.

9) Transformations are a constant. Institutions are not able to adapt quickly enough to meet the transformational needs of all sentient beings.

10) What if the phrase, 'You will know the Kingdom of Heaven when the Body is Full of Light' means that we don't have to make the Body Full of Light as much as recognize that the Body is Always Already Full of Light; that Bodies are The Absorbed Light of The One in Substance, and the Reflective Light Of The One in Appearance.

11) What if the Kingdom of Heaven is realized when the 'Body is Full of Light' Truth is understood as a constant.

12) There is not Light & Matter, with Light Shining off of and reflecting off of Matter. Matter is absorbed Light in its Essence.

13) Light on the inside. Light on the outside. Light through and through.

14) Light-bodies consuming Light-bodies means there is only Light. You are Light, feeding on Light, sustained by Light, enthused by Light. You love the Light. You are the Light. Everyone... evey thing... is ... Illumination.

15) You have no other nature, no second nature. Light is the onlyness of your everyness.

16) If you understand #15 then you know you don't need 'enlightenment.' Maybe you need 'Enbrightenment', but certainly not 'enlightenment.' 

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that the 'principles' of a group--or a collective, if you prefer that term--somehow alter the intrinsic dynamics that seem to coalesce and form in any and all groups?

Do you think that because Integral INstitute is ... well.. Integral Institute... that it will somehow be immune from pathological group dynamics that have afflicted people from day one? Do you think that Zaadz, also, is somehow immune from the 'group pathologies' just because of the lofty principles its members hold and espouse?

If you do, I think you are crazy. And that is my beef. That has been a large part of my Integral rant for years now--ever since Ken Wilber began forming an 'institution' around Integral. And now I dare to state that the same possibilities are coming into existence for Zaadz.

I honestly don't think that most people get it. I really am of the impression--and have the sense--that there is not near enough awareness of the intrinsic group dynamics that tend to coalesce in groups and collectives while we are touting our high-falutin' principles. The dupe comes in assuming that 'high-order principles' will somehow eliminate the need for examining the nature of group dynamics and how group dynamics tend to form in an habitual, totally unconscious, blind, deaf, and dumb way.

It is why collectives so often fail. Blame it on the leaders. Blame it on the organizers. Blame it on the management. Blame it on the idealist for not understanding that there are practical matters that need to be consistently addressed else the motto... 'Here comes the new herd... same as the old herd...' will soon be found to apply to your favourite group.

The bigger a collective is and the faster it grow the more important keen organizational people--people who understand how to deflect group pathologies and alter group dynamics in such a way as to eliminate potentially destructive consequences--are for that group. In fact, I would call keen organizational shamans, if you will, the most important people for the long-term success and health of the collective. Bar none!

One of the problems that such an organizational shaman will face is the resistance amongst the members of the group to admit their habitual modes of relationship that are like so many group-grooves that people are falling into again and again and again. For instance, you get your little cliques that form. Yes, Zaadz has a clique-ish nature (sorry to burst your idealistic bubble!) that all collectives manifest unless and until the individual members actively resist the tendency to form into cliques and special little clubs.

Notice I said, actively resist. That's the part that the organizational shaman has a hell of a time with: getting people to actively resist what feel like their own natural tendencies.

Of course, if the individual members don't actively resist habitual modes of relating that become a cancer for the group then that group is not long for making any sort of beneficial impact on the world. I suspect that this is what has happened at I-I and other variously assorted Wilber-centric enterprises. And I am only bringing this to the table today to see to it that Zaadz does not degenerate in a way that happens all too often when collectives assume that their 'principles' will somehow take care of 'group dynamics' without any human intervention.

I have heard more than once a mention about New-Age groups and collectives self-organizing in line with natural systems. This is taken as a 'more evolved' way to manage our groups (or, I suppose, not manage in the case of self-organization).

While it does sound like a fine idea to me--at least at first glance--over time it becomes problematic when one realizes that we are not a critical mass of elements and/or molecules. For us, as human-beings, the matter of 'self-organization' becomes much more complex--if not complicated--due to the increasing levels of complexity involved when we move from atoms to molecules to organs to entities to collectives of entities.

For instance, we--as human beings--are the stuff of which dreams and desires are made of. We have our own personal inclinations and idiosyncracies. Some very odd and pepculiar. We have... in short... a capacity for forming 'intentions.'

The diversity of our dreams and desires is precisely what can offer a richness and depth to a particular group. That is one of the beautiful things about Zaadz, and a clear power that it assserts over, say, a more narrowly focused group with a more deliberate set of intentions--such as, say, The Integral Institute. With Zaadz there is no charismatic persona heading the legions of followers (though we do have a few 'stars' in the making here at Zaadz). To my understanding, this is one of the keys to preventing any of the traditional group pathologies from forming in the Zaadz Commons: the fact that there is no single, charismatic persona around which everyone else is made to orbit like so many moths to a flame. 

At Zaadz anyone can be a 'star' any day of the week. Someone might have a word to share with you that 'fits perfectly into the space of your awareness.' Someone else might share with you a song. Yet another person might place an image before your eyes that gives you courage and strength in a time of desperate need. And tomorrow it could be somebody different... someone new... someone you hadn't even known existed. Yet someone who becomes a beacon of light--a Star--in your eyes.

A corporation will pay some technical genuis a considerable sum of money in order to handle in-house technical issues that might disrupt business if let unchecked. We don't even question this. It is conventional knowledge that you would have someone on your staff who is skilled at dealing with technical issues. In fact, I would guess that most of the Zaadz team-members--the salaried variety--fall within that framework.

Of course, it goes without saying that as human-beings involved in various collective enterprises our activities cannot be boiled down to mere matters of technique. We are not just 'cogs in a machine.' We are not just so many 'functional pieces to a larger puzzle.' We are, as it were, beings populated by dreams and desires. We are rich vein of psychological truths, of emotional experiences, of daily triumphs and losses that are metabolized within the collective nexus in a way that few, if any, dare to acknowledge, let alone comprehend.

We, as a society will pay and reward people handsomely if they can increase productivity, or if they are able to innovate in a way that adds value to a product or service. Yet, seldom do we hear talk about the value of ensuring the collective wellness of a corporation or group. The sense is that these things just take care of themselves: that people will be able to effectively metabolize their interface with the collective in a way that will add value to the collective and take value away.

I wonder about that sense though. I don't personally feel that people are effectively aware of the interface where the personal melts and merges into the collective. That is 'cutting edge' to me. That is where a large step can be taken by groups--all sorts of institutions and corporations, governments and cultures, sub-cultures and even families--in fostering health and well-being not only for the collective but for the members who are that collective in sum.

But where do you go to school for this? You can get a Business Management Degree At Harvard or Yale and still not 'get it.' What I am pointing to is not the 'management of people in an organization' as much as a sensing of the flows of energy and attention within the organization and how those are subtle precursors of tomorrow's cold, hard facts.

Like I asked, 'Where do you go to school for that?'

And who is part of an Organization radical enough--on the cutting edeg, truly willing to make a lasting impression on the 21st Century and Beyond--so that rewarding the Organizational Shaman is as high a priority as paying handsomely for a computer engineer or programmer.