Journal
What Would Wyatt Do? Follow-Up #3.
June 22, 2006 20:46

Folks,

This posting is the last of the Wyatt Earpy series. I’ll take this opportunity to say a few last words, and include several last emails and some (mostly positive) posts from others.

First off, in addition to negative elements, I continue to get a lot of positive emails and phone calls. These will be written off as kw minions, but surely some positive and heartfelt comments about me are allowed, including even love, and this email is representative:


Dearest Ken,

Driving out to work today. Reading Part 2 to [ ] as she drove. (We only read Part 1 yesterday.) No coffee through the nose onto the dashboard this time.

The only thing that spilled out in the truck was profound appreciation and gratitude for your gifts, your attention and energy, your wisdom, and your guidance through all of This. (Tell me, how do I clean that off the carpets?)

Some time ago – I don’t know exactly when – I began reading the Meyerhoff MS and soon thought, “My God! Who pissed in his Wheaties?” I stopped reading when I realized that it was an infantile, unfounded, ad hominem attack, mostly focusing on stuff you had written years ago.

Sadly, I sometimes think that “the bad guys win” more often than not, or that the creepiest people tend to be exalted while those with a good, honest, well-constructed message get trampled. It was with great joy, then, that I read Part 1 and really “got” what it was about. (You may recall that it was I who wrote the Amazon review of Boomeritis titled, “Who Will ‘Get’ It? Many, hopefully.”)

I can understand how trying it must have been for you to ‘step out of character’ to write that Part-1, but I think it was never more needed, more timely, or more on-target. You’ve proved to me that the good guys can have a real set sometimes, and that balances the scales nicely, thank you.

We love you from the bottom of our Big Heart,
[ ]


This positive email makes a point I would like to comment on:


Dear Ken,

Head buried in the work of corporations, I just woke up to your “Wyatt Earpy, What We Are” riffs and was glad to see you entering the tool shed for some “Red” paint. There is one lesson in the conversation that struck me most. Once we get to second tier we may not use the full range of our voices, all the keys available to us, and that would limit the richness of the music we can generate. We may think we are masters of the whole keyboard but if we never reach those lower octaves we are not using our full capacity to sing or play.

Since part of the responsibility of higher tiers is to care for the health of other tiers, for many reasons we must be willing to flex and flow along the whole line, otherwise we cannot meet people where they are or utilize the strengths available to us. In a conversation with a young “green” couple this week I described the idea of levels and lines and from their pluralistic filter they were totally shocked and resistant to it. But when I shifted from what sounded to them like a hierarchy to the concept of a bag of tools with lots of choices in it, they lit up, loved and bought into the idea of the spiral, inching their way towards the second tier.

Your riffs are a dramatic demonstration of the fluidity of your mind and your mastery of the language. It is obvious that you think in metaphors, subtleties and layers of meaning at a level few people on the planet can. And that makes every sentence worth reading at least twice. Thank you for sharing your vitriol. It was music.

With love,
[ ]


IMO, that is a particularly important point, namely, the fact that the Wyatt type of email can most definitely come from second tier. That is one of the most important lessons in all of this. Many people’s idea of second tier is a humorless, dull, vast green flatland filled with idiot compassion and lots of wooden spoons. So forget my particular email, which some folks are convinced has come from the antichrist; but if you can’t see that this type of email can come from second tier, then you can’t see second tier, I promise you.

One person wrote the following on a forum, meant rather negatively, but there are good points in it (as there are in most of the negative criticisms, as opposed to negative projective outbursts, and I take constructive negative criticisms seriously):

“So yellows need greens. To grow Ken needs everyone he's in relationship with to grow. Cutting off doesn't cut it, and that is the thing---the bad smell I keep getting a whiff of---I think. He may have a plan, a sub-plan, a sub-sub-plan and even a sub-sub-sub-plan in his multilayered communications, but I tend to think: forget all that analysing and triple layering and look at the effect: greens cut off from yellows, ergo greens lose out, ergo yellows lose out, we all lose out. The whole is diminished by dissociation and so are the parts. I thought the whole idea of integral was based on that ageless principle of unity and diversity - too much of one or the other diminishes both. The win-win situation requires integrated diversity, which I suggest means individuals who communicate authentically.”

In one sense that is absolutely true, and right on the money. The problem is that in practical terms there is simply a limit to how much of this you can do. It’s the same issue I always face with critics: I have gotten hundreds of critical publications, posts, emails, and blogs that want to engage me in a critical dialogue, and they all say the same thing: if you don’t dialogue with me, you are not being integral, OR you are afraid of my devastating critiques (that’s the most common), OR you are arrogant and think you’re better than us all, OR…. Well, you get the picture. Even if wanted to do so, there is absolutely no way I would have time to do so. And this lack of time is taken as lack of interest, lack of love, lack of care…. And it’s just not so. I beg people to try and understand this.

Many (not all) individuals who red-flagged the earlier drafts that I circulated of Wyatt Earpy (part 1) found the last draft acceptable. This is from one of the two harshest critics, whose first and very critical email I included in a previous blog:


Hey Ken,

Just returned from your site where I reread the whole thing. Maybe it’s the editing, maybe a few days perspective, but I’m left with: what fun! Enjoyed it all thoroughly. And the guided piece at the end wrecked me. Softened, splayed, flayed and wrecked.

Thank you, dear and wild Teacher and Friend.
[ ]


One suggested I put on my home page: “a bodhisattva with the mouth of a gangsta rapper."

As for my capacity for dialoging, Brad Reynolds sent this excerpt from his book Where’s Wilber At? Ken Wilber’s Integral Vision in the New Millennium (Paragon House, 2006) by Brad Reynolds (475 words), where he attempts something of a neutral impartiality:


Dialoguing with Wilber: Integral Conversations

Now with the emergence of Integral Institute, Integral University, Integral Naked, and other public outreach ventures, there are thousands of people and students participating with Wilber personally in a dialogical approach to reviewing his AQAL Metatheory and its far-reaching implications. In fact, the opportunity is now available for anyone to dialogue, in a space of mutual understanding and respect, the various details and breadth of integral philosophy, sometimes with Wilber personally, but always with qualified representatives of Integral Institute.

In any case, Wilber has always listened hard and intently to his critics’ concerns, often incorporating their valid points, or even answering them in future writings. Overall, fortunately, this back-and-forth debate and struggle to clarify ideas has been beneficial to all parties involved. Unfortunately, this has also made it doubly difficult for a reader to know exactly where Wilber’s at, however, this is how the Integral Vision stays vital, alive, and effective in the world-at-large – by intersubjective dialoguing and subjective transformative practices verified, confirmed, and checked by the “community of the adequate” or other like-minded people.

Of course, in the sphere of philosophia or the “love of wisdom,” it’s totally appropriate, healthy, natural, and just plain smart, to intellectually critique Wilber’s writings and so-called theories as you go along (as with any other theories or statements made by anybody). All propositions must be questioned and submitted to critical thinking, the doorway to discovery. That’s how we learn in real-life circumstances and maintain our autonomy and freedom. Nonetheless, Wilber’s ideas are boundless, and full of stimulating considerations to be enjoyed and pondered, for they reach from science to the arts to philosophy to politics, from psyche to cosmos, from myths to mysticism, from religion to spirit (or God, Brahman, BuddhaNature). Pick and choose what’s useful for you. Learn to integrate the plurality of ideas and worldviews streaming off his pages and which are alive and active in the world around us.

Ultimately, as we’ll consistently witness, Wilber’s main thrust is to encourage everyone to practice and grow, to reach and evolve, to develop further in order to see for oneself the truths of authentic spirituality and Enlightenment (or God-Realization); in other words, get involved in real transformative practices – do the yoga! With an integral philosophy claiming “Everybody is Right!” then there’s really no need to believe anything, or anyone, let alone believe everything. Although this Grand AQAL Theory of Everything is undeniably brilliant in its scope and saturated with liberating power, it will always be somewhat difficult to grasp, and definitely impossible to finalize, because it’s paradoxically nondual and “Empty” (or inexplicably Divine). Besides, the entire display is only an integral dance anyway just trying to engage you in authentic transpersonal practices and sacred spiritual wisdom.


One of the thorniest issues is finding, and allowing, an integral space, an integral sanctuary. I spoke out to all who are looking for such, and invited them to join us. One person recognized this call and emailed:


Ken,

Thank you, thank you, for these tears of recognition streaming down my face, of community, of being held and seen and loved and understood—when I read your words in the blog:

"You’re in the closet, aren’t you? Because if you express actual integral thoughts or ideas then the herd descends on you with a vengeance, yes? If you are in that 2%, your life is a living hell, in so many ways, isn’t it? Because the first-tier rants are all around you, aren’t they?"

Why do you like turning me into a blubbering, crying mess? :-)

Being sensitive to the sensitives' sensitivities instead of their REAL needs is utterly backwards....
Go AQAL...
[ ]


Ken,
I just finished reading it here at school, and am now crying at my desk, heart exploded open, I AM-ness fully awake.......
I received my dharma name yesterday--Sojin, "total integration", the closest we could come to "Integral" in Japanese.....
I love you..i love you...
blessings.
[ ]



But notice this. Ordinarily you would tell somebody that their capacity to love is wonderful, something to be nurtured and increased. The more they love, the better. EXCEPT if they love me. If they feel any sort of love for me and say so, then they are a cultic idiot. So apparently if anybody loves me, they are sick.

Say what? Poor me can never get any love that isn’t branded unhealthy and cultic. That type of attitude completely precludes and deconstructs any positive emotion, especially from a loving heart (beforehand and without regard for the individual, leaving no room for his or her heartfelt and often hard-won emotions and feelings to be displayed and shared), a type of cyber sausage-grinder for any type of exuberant expression of any positive emotion--joy, love, happiness, radiance. In its place, no surprise: irony, bitterness, cynicism.

I’ll take exuberant love, including loving me!, anytime that anybody wants to offer that gift, and I hope you will accept it, too.


Dear Ken,

Reading the Wyatt Earpy escapades has been so amazingly beautiful for me. I have been asking myself at least for the last year, “Is Ken doing what I think he is?” I heard all of the criticism, where are the women, where is the counsel of integral wisdom, why is this the Ken Wilber show, why doesn’t Ken want to work on his own shadow. I mean upon entering II it seems there is a gauntlet that must be run as would-be gunslingers come popping out from every corner. I admit it was difficult for me to process all of this with my own only newly discovered integral wings. And process I have done.

And coming back again and again was the question. “Am I seeing what I think I am seeing?” What Wyatt did for me was to answer that question. I am not sure if it was the precision of Wyatt’s gun slinging or the fact that I am simply myself reaching the clarity of perception to see it—surely both. In any case I can only tell you that I now understand the space you are holding. Not any space, but holding the space of the tip of a Kosmic knife being plunged into the unknown, the crystalline blade slicing the fabric you have pierced. The screams are no more than the anguished cries of the blade itself as they strain under the pressure of following you though the cut, the whole being purified as it is baptized in the Kosmic blood being spilled in brilliant sparks of light.

Good God Ken, Fucking hold your course. You must for the cut to be clean, for the groove to hold. The choice has been made! Stand as the Vitruvian man, the blazing light of the Kosmos ripping you apart spark for spark as you hold the fucking line!! For it is your will to play this part, and the Kosmos themselves have already reclaimed your heart. When your shining, brilliant diamond tip has done its part you will leave us here without a trace of fear, standing in your place prepared from grace.

Thank you Ken. Thank you Ken! I am with you my friend!
[ ]


If you think that’s cultic, yes, I believe that we (and the two or three surrounding planets) heard you. At I-I, we want to try to work with virtually anybody, but you would not want to join a cult, would you? So if you have called I-I a cult, I’m assuming that you won’t be joining us. Some of these are genuine concerns, and as a matter of fact, I honestly share those concerns. In fact, two decades ago I co-edited one of the first serious, academic works on empirical ways to distinguish between unhealthy cults and healthy spiritual organizations, along a continuum of three independent variables (which is a much more accurate assessment than the notoriously unreliable “checklist”). It was called Spiritual Choices: The Problem of Recognizing Authentic Paths to Inner Transformation. It was hailed as a “landmark publication.” Perhaps the most respected scholar in this area, Nevitt Sanford, co-author of The Authoritarian Personality, called it a “godsend,” and said, “Social scientists will appreciate the authors’ sensitive, unbiased, and thoroughgoing analysis….”

Doing the book was amazing…, and deeply unsettling. We interviewed people, and touched on things involving: Synanon, rattlesnakes in mailboxes, Scientology at its worst, a group of Psychosynthesis gone very sour, Rajneesh in various phases (including gun carrying), the Unification Church (aka the Moonies), and most disturbing of all, an in-depth interview with the black man who escaped, leading a handful of people, the morning that the fateful Kool-Aid was drunk. A few hours after he and his group went over the fence, 913 people drank cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.

Based on a year-long study of his and many other experiences, a study supported by the Center for the Study of New Religious Movements in Berkeley, we arrived at this 3-variable, 8-box grid, which has continued to be highly accurate in spotting and predicting cultic behavior, because it is based, not on making judgments like “it doesn’t allow criticism” (which is meaningless), but rather on several nonjudgmental variables that have been found empirically to be associated with behavior that injures groups and individuals. (This stops people who don’t like a movement from labeling it cultic by coming up with checklists of things they don’t like, which are just tautological.) It was, and is indeed, a landmark publication.

I am glad to report that both the structure and beliefs of Integral Institute fall in the box (out of 8 boxes) that, in the past, has had the lowest number of cultic behaviors.

I-I is not charismatic; its teachings are not based on your relation to a person but on your relation to an idea, namely AQAL. If you also happen to like or love me, I very much appreciate it, but that’s not what we do. We do not teach relationships to me, but rather how to learn, use, criticize, and apply AQAL. And it’s important to realize that AQAL is simply one version of integral. There are all sorts of other integral philosophies, integral forums, and arenas where somebody can play if they reject our approach, and I support the existence of those other forums and always have.

At I-I, we do not speak for integral, we speak for AQAL. We think AQAL is the best version of integral available. But we do not pretend to speak for all of integral, just our version. So if you think I-I is cultic, please, by all means go join other integral institutions, other integral universities, other integral organizations, and other integral forums. But if you like AQAL in general, every single person out there is invited to join us and work with us using this particular version of integral. And I’m serious when I say we’d love to have you join us, and help build I-I as it unfolds into the future.

We just opened our doors and have been flooded by people interested in being I-I community directors, forum facilitators, volunteer coordinators, etc. Presumably these are individuals who do not share a cultic opinion. And yes, it is no accident that Wyatt Earpy was released one week before the multiplex was. It was not quite the stroke of marketing genius some have credited us with (which is why it wasn’t discussed in the marketing meetings Lynne attended), but rather because we wanted to clear the field in just this area, so that those applying were not doing so for obvious shadow issues; we wanted them out in the open, pro or con, so that everybody could decide for themselves. And I’m truly sorry if some people felt punked; the idea was not merely to annoy or expose, because it was part of an entire package that included follow-up, self-reflection, the shadow challenge, making courses and seminars available for dealing with these issues, and so on. A drive-by shooting it wasn’t.

But the reason that we needed to do this now can be seen from the fact that some of the shadow material got rather ugly indeed, and so at least now we know. After part 1 was up (and before part 2 was put up), one individual posted statements urging everybody to contact some of the universities that I-I is in partnership with, telling them that they should re-consider whether that is the kind of partnership they wanted. This individual clearly wanted to hurt I-I in very serious ways. Then part 2 was posted, which basically exposed the shadow-motivation of this individual, because he was known in the forums for exactly the qualities that he was condemning in others. One teacher reported that “he’s known as a ‘wilber nazi’; he acts as the class expert on integral and KW. Seems he has gone to the other side now. Maybe because we didn't let him come play. He wanted to be an editor for AQAL Journal at one point. As best I can tell he is in a love/hate relationship with you”—that is, he is shadow-boxing and shadow-hugging.

But the shadow-hugging part is important. I have been emphasizing the shadow-boxing side, where some of the “bad stuff” in an individual is denied and projected, but individuals can also be unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, some of their good stuff, and when that happens, they will project that onto other people, including me, and when they do so, they build me up into a much greater person than I could ever be. So in seminars and workshops we teach individuals to take back the positive goodies that they project (such as wisdom, grace, beauty, intelligence, strength, etc.) as well as the negatives (shadow elements of being too controlling, judgmental, critical, domineering, authoritarian, etc.) using the same 3-2-1 process. You can find some of these “re-integration” guidelines in all three of the Shadow Series PDFs. (We also teach our teachers how to spot the difference between an Atman projection onto the teacher and a shadow projection onto the teacher. The former is based on a profound reality, the latter on a basic lie; and we work with decoding and re-owning them both.)

But the point is, I am much less angelic than my fans believe, and much less demonic than my critics imagine.

But what’s bothersome about this particularly relates to the whole idea of a sanctuary for turquoise. When it comes to community spaces, such as forums, second-tier folks tend to slowly withdraw from the field because they are hammered by angry first-tier responses whenever they post. The community and forum spaces slowly become dominated by those folks, bless their hearts, while many teal, turquoise (or higher) people just don’t want to speak out, speak up, or post, because they’ll be descended on, either overtly or subtly, and harassed and abused, and when this happens time after time after time, many second-tier folks tend to retire from the forums and the intersubjective circle. I know, because I got scores of responses from second-tier folks saying exactly that in response to Wyatt’s call.

Here is a typical response, this one from Spain:


Hi Ken,

Thank you for what you started with the entry in your blog "What we see, That we are." In a lot of (so called) integral lists, green discussions abound, and it is very difficult to come out of the closet and make any integral judgment because they will jump at you. I think the integral world needs a little of cleaning, and that cleaning is already happening.

That cleaning is specially needed in some Spanish lists and I am having them informed of every new link in your blog about it. Unfortunately a lot of people here don´t speak English well enough to follow it....

By the way, you have a chapter in "The Spectrum of Consciousness" about the shadow ("Integrating the shadow") that is, in many ways, more complete than the one from "No Boundary"
[we have now included that in The Shadow Series, part 2.]


[ ]


Some found this difficulty in coming-out to be related to generational issues. This is to a teacher at IU:


Dear [ ],

I was grinning, shuddering and yearning as I read your email. I crave 2nd-tier stimulation. I have a small amount of friends here in the UK in whose consciousness and compassion I find so much wisdom and love, but they are scattered, and are mostly my parent’s age!

The work you guys are doing on IU and the multiplex is so, so important. I feel blessed to have discovered it, and have been ready for it, and its implications.

I see the postmodern constrictions in groups such as the LondonIS to an increasing degree. It makes me sad that such wonderful, insightful people are still held back by ideological agendas. It’s a generation thing I guess… or partly anyway.

I wrote my final year thesis using the AQAL model… a barrel of laughs (my tutor is a staunch Derridian postmodernist), but I revelled in the challenge of dialoguing with him in mutually skillful ways. The thought of a forum for young Integral scholars sets my hairs tingling, I cannot think of a more exciting challenge.

Thank you again for your awareness, and generosity, and of all you are part of with I-I. It is not only Ken’s work that has been so important for me, but his being, his love, his humour, his kindness and his brilliance. I would be honoured if you wanted to pass on these emails. It is a blessing that Integral ideas are being held by such a spirit. I feel all this, even though I have only met him through videos, and books.

The cat-calls of guru cults and ego driven greed baffle me. I see why they are made, I try to never underestimate the power of postmodern nihilism, but it is still very sad to see.

I resonated with Ken’s blog so strongly… and laughed so hard. I’m definitely down with some Green marginalising… Integral just wants its own corner of the playground to play without being bullied by mean Greenies. I can see the master tactician at work in Ken’s approach.

I have never been a pessimist, but I have always held hope very carefully in my heart. The work of people such as yourself and Ken give me the most wonderful hope I can currently imagine.

Much love and gratitude
[ ]


One teacher pointed out the shadow-nature of many of the personal criticisms this way:


The problem for these critics is that they can’t win here; the large number of people who know Ken well uniformly disagree that he is like that; this leaves the critics with nothing but their shadows driving their perceptions….


But when all is said and done, perhaps Rumi said it best:

        In fact, you are attacking yourself.
        You see yourself in the mirror of me,
        like the lion who creeps down the well
        to attack his likeness.
        There is no way, at this time
        to make God known except by denying the not-God.
        [make the truth known by denying the false projections.]

Apart from the personal shadow criticisms, there were indeed some serious criticisms that could be discerned. But many of those were based on not being familiar with all my writing, which is of course a daunting task, but no critic of my work can be taken seriously who doesn’t read my work. Sometimes they just forget something, as this from our own Coolmel, the chaotic catalyst and cordic coordinator, who is this site’s blogosphere meister. And yes, he starts by saying a few nice things about the boss (cut him some slack), but then never hesitates to rip off a few arms or legs. But notice that even Coolmel has forgotten some of the items he criticizes me for not doing (esp. responding to public criticism):


Ken and everyone,

first of i'm really amazed on what's happening here. just a couple of months ago, KDub was still a bit hesitant to blog (even prefers pissing in the snow fer Chrissakes) but now KDub is like rocking the blogosphere with skillful stroking. so yeah, this is really fun :)

with all this hoopla still going on i noticed how a lot of intelligent people out there still miss the essential message/theme of Wyatt Earpy. (well, i'm not sure if i do get everything, but i think i get enough.)

as for the reactions against Wyatt Earpy, most of them are indeed uber-mega-projections. however, there are some nuggets of wisdom that i think I-I should take seriously. some of these reactions i happen to agree with:

- personally, i'm not aware of any "public" valid criticisms on integral theory that got transcended and included (maybe they're in the footnotes somewhere, i skip footnotes ;)), but i do take it on "faith" that these things exist, otherwise Wilber wouldn't evolve from Wilber-1-5. but still i think it's a good idea to be "transparent" on these things by having "open access" to "valid" criticisms (and responses) to integral theory. Something like a an open-access Integral Journal. first example that come to my mind is what PLOS (Public Library of Science) is doing. check out this blog thread for details: http://coolmel.zaadz.com/blog/2006/6/transparency_open_access_free_radical
[ ]


I replied:


Yes, the response is often in endnotes (sometimes hundreds of pages in a single book), and also remember that the entire book on “Ken Wilber in Dialogue” is in response to public and often negative criticism (it’s over a decade old, and I don’t recommend it at all any more) and note also that most of the 400 pages of The Eye of Spirit were written entirely in response to public criticism (which is especially obvious in the first edition, where I actually use the critics’ names). But much of this kind of stuff happens in daily personal discussions with an untold number of scholars. Much of the criticism I incorporate comes from friendly scholars who alert me to criticisms, and I incorporate those based on what they report, not the primary source itself, whom I often don’t talk to. But it comes to exactly the same thing.
Ken



Coolmel remembered that he did indeed forget some of these massive responses, and replied:


KDub: a lot of people (including me who is a student of I-I) are not aware (or too lazy to be aware) of valid criticisms that you have respond to already. and thanks for reminding me. i have read KW in Dialogues a long time ago and that's where you addressed a lot of criticisms already. i even forgot about that! do'h! kick ass and be still.

~C



Other criticisms misread what was written. The phrase "I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind" – that phrase is not from me but from a critic! Go back and look at it; it is clearly within the quotation marks of the critic speaking—that is what this particular critic thinks of himself (boomeritis anybody?). But I was then lambasted for something that wasn’t even mine. I can’t tell you how often this happens. Sheeeeeesh.

What perhaps got the most number of heartfelt positive responses was the pointing-out instruction for recognizing and experiencing I AMness, which ended part 2. I put those there because I hoped the entire post would then take an individual through sensations of the self-contraction and then into the pure openness of I AMness, or the union of Emptiness and Form, Freedom and Fullness, in this very moment. These instructions are from those we included in the ILP Starter Kit.


One person had an undeniably good idea:


Hey Ken,

I'll keep this brief. I've been loosely following the chain of events regarding your recent posts and you may remember my email regarding the "video version" of Wyatt Earpy.

I wasn't kidding. Here's why:

(1) In my opinion, people, especially the folks that live their lives in forums, *hide* behind the safety of screens and words. They say shit they wouldn't dare say to your face, and on the flip side, we're robbed of the possibility for more humanity or a more authentic form of contact.

(2) Studies show that in verbal communication, typically 55% of it is through body language, 38% through voice tonality and only 7% is through the actual words. SEVEN PERCENT!

(3) The folks that "got it" seemed to be folks that had actually met you. They had a reference to work with that countered the apparent tone in the post. They had references of your tone and body language to "read it to them." They have felt your heart. The others have a phantom.

So I'm asking myself, "What's more important? The message or the words?" In this day and age, this salvo could have been delivered MORE artfully with a more comprehensive representation of who you are. The odds of "getting it" are greatly increased (see point #2). Hence the video suggestion.

My $.02 with Big Love.
[ ]


Let me repeat something I said at the beginning. Whether saying it on video or blog, I sincerely believe that people need to get this part, and get it deeply: 100% of a blog like Wyatt Earpy can come from Turquoise (and higher). Categorically so. You can argue whether or not mine did, but the point is that this type of thing most certainly could have been. There is room in second tier for this type of flight, and for symphonic use of first-tier elements in vision-logic chords! If not, then second tier is a sad, dry, humorless place, devoid of light and breeze and airiness and divine wise-assed-ness. If it’s that flat, then somebody please shoot me....

You listen to folks talk about getting to second tier and it sounds like a retirement home, you get there and—what? It’s like an endless peaceful pacific pasture of azaleas, gardenias, and idiot compassion, blooming everywhere, a vast, choking, humor free zone as far as the eye can see, with no room to move, to roam, to scream and dance and come and cream—or simply scream for ice cream—and cuss to boot, somebody please shoot—me!—naught from their fountain ~ although to the party on Brokeback Mountain, Wyatt brings only his horse, but who’s countin’? ~ so back to the retirement home, a nightmare sewn by sadists, disputation, misquotation, lethal mutation, total frustration, for poor second tier, slammed to the rear, never down for the count, Wyatt still mounts, trusty horsey (say no more, see?), a whoop and a holler and a rebel yell, save this sorry-ass place from first-tier hell, hence the Manjushri dude, sword swackin’, slurpee throw backin, speaking of which, Holy Mackerel!, let’s go get one!, flavored third tier indigo or yummy grape purple, says our favorite urban legend, ultraviolet Wyatt Earple.

Shit. I meant, he’s no turkey, he’s lonesome rider, Wyatt Earpy. Oh well....

As for humor, it’s hard to beat this. WyattEarpy.com has t-shirts, underwear, jackets, mugs, luggage, you name it, with slogans that say:

I Heart Wyatt
Simply Wyatt
What Would Wyatt Do?
Let’s Get a Slurpee
Wyatt’s Minions
Simply Suck IT

Among others. It’s a family business, and very cool. Definitely check it out. Family member Cori emailed the following, which I don’t think she’d mind me sharing:


Hello Ken ~
Thanks for writing.
I'm glad you like the site.
I felt very inspired by the maelstrom
surrounding your brilliant posts.
It's really something.
I know it's all terribly serious, but I
just can't stop laughing!

The Cafe Press shop was just a way for me to
express my own perverse delight in Wyatt,
and to give a shout out to you and your humanity.
A tiny voice shouting, "I get it!"

But I'm not attached to any of it - so if you want
the domain it's yours. Your team could
do much more w it. (In all that spare time you have!)

Congratulations on the Multiplex launch!

Big Love,
Cori Young


They also ones that say I-I heart you, which is fantastic. Look closely at all the “hearts.” They have the four quadrants, and they are green with a small band of turquoise around them.

Well, on that happy note of I-I heart you, the saga of lonesome rider Wyatt Earpy comes to an end.

So what is the final word? We want integral to work for everybody, to provide a space for anybody who wants to join us and help build I-I, regardless of what might be a person’s supposed altitude, level, stage, grade, shade, clade, or flavor. Seriously.

At the same time, we are providing an integral sanctuary. Does that mean you have to take a test or something to get into I-I? No. How do you know what altitude people are? We don’t. Do you care what altitude they are in order to join? No—you are free to enter these sanctuaries if you yourself want to or choose to. The only requirement is that while in these I-I spaces, you agree to follow a handful of basic Road Rules, examples of which can be found here. As long as you live up to those, you are welcome. Most of the main spaces have AQAL as a reference point, but you don’t have to know it or even agree with it. However, if you wish to criticize it, we ask that you do so in areas that have been specifically created for just that.

So that’s it for this shadow/Wyatt series. I hope you enjoyed it, because ultimately and in the final analysis, it comes from much love, life, and light.... Ken



------------------------------------------------------------------


The Wyatt Menu: Related Posts:

What We Are, That We See. Part I: Response to Some Recent Criticisms in a Wild West Fashion.

What We Are, That We See. Part II: What is the Real Meaning of This?

The Unbearable Lightness of Wyatt Earpy. Follow-Up #1.

On the Nature of Shadow Projections in Forums. Follow-Up #2.


The Shadow Series:

The Shadow Series. Part 1: How to Spot the Shadow.

The Shadow Series. Part 2: Integrating the Shadow.

The Shadow Series. Part 3: A Working Synthesis of Transactional Analysis and Gestalt Therapy.

Vertline-top
Vertline-bottom


« recent entry | return to index | previous entry »


  © 2015 Ken Wilberhome | what's new | professional | personal | cultural | social | cool stuff site design by ursa minor