Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

Last post 03-12-2007, 2:56 AM by infimitas. 9 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  02-09-2007, 10:58 PM 19200

    Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    ** Commencing monthly bitching about Holons **

    Steve Pavlina - turquoise? Really? As far as I know, Steve believes in Subjective Reality - the new-age idea that all reality - physical to biological to psychological to spiritual - is the sole creation of my mind, possibly because of quantum physics. I don't know exactly what the criteria are to be considered integral or turquoise, but surely such a clear example of UL reductionism would consign the holder of this view to Green? Am I wrong?


    • Post Points: 95
    • Report abuse
  •  02-10-2007, 7:35 AM 19209 in reply to 19200

    • Kokyu is not online. Last active: 02-10-2007, 7:35 AM Kokyu
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-17-2006
    • Posts 2
    • Points 10

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    I agree... See my post above and the link to the review...
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  02-11-2007, 2:28 AM 19235 in reply to 19200

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    Yup... me three.  I was wondering what that was all about last night when the newsletter came through.

    I got a lot out of this blog a little while back when I was using some of his insights to change jobs, but I haven't got much more.  His copious links to 'The Secret' and other sources of this UL reductionism had me wondering why it was at turquoise as well...

    Anyone got some pointers?

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  02-11-2007, 2:24 PM 19258 in reply to 19200

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    If Pavlina is about attraction, what is attraction ? (lit.,"not going anywhere" and "to draw toward"). In that i can see the "always, already" that KW refers to and Genpo Roshi teaches.

    I think that if we want to repel, alienate or otherwise dissociate from amber/blue we should present/introduce green. However, if our objective is to lead or attract blue, it may be more usefull to present/introduce orange.

    If the cog of our intended audience is orange, presenting green ( which, of course, includes the prior altitudes ) makes sense to me.

    Recalling the Nightinggale-Conant material of the '80's ( target audience, amber through green ), it seems to me that much of the innovation of their programs concerned prompting an operative integration of the functional uses of the aspects of development which a staight conventionality might've rather resisted to it's own stagnation/detriment.

    As tempting as it may be to recast Transcend and Include as Transcend and Exclude, i can't think of a single actual case where that worked for those directly involved.

    But then, for me to comment on Turquiose feels like the living talking about the bardo, intermediate states, or heaven.

    Thanks for bitching,

    kcd


    'takes all kinds.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  02-12-2007, 4:45 AM 19274 in reply to 19200

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    I believe Steve Pavlina has an integral cognition, as well as a lot of integral ideas, but that he sometimes becomes trapped in green value structures.

    Recommending "The Secret" is obviously a mistake, and I think part of the reason he makes that mistake is that he tries to translate the ideas from the movie upwards into turquoise.

    The following quotes from his website show that his way of thinking is far from the narcissism of green with a magenta underbelly:

    So within a subjective belief system, are other people conscious like me too?

    People are not conscious.  Only consciousness is conscious.  So in a sense, there are no other conscious people.  There is only one consciousness, and all the people you perceive exist within it.  And that consciousness is who and what you are.  There’s only one consciousness, so there’s only one you.

    ..........

    The reality is that you are indeed the only one who’s conscious.  But that YOU who’s conscious isn’t your body-mind.  Your body-mind as well as all the other bodies you perceive exist within your consciousness.  There’s only one consciousness, and that is your real identity.  Everything else exists within you.  That’s why you perceive only one consciousness.  That’s the only consciousness that exists.

     

    Steve obviously needs AQAL as a framework to support his integral tendencies and stay clear from green Smile [:)]

    Pelle


    http://pelle.zaadz.com/
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  02-12-2007, 8:15 PM 19305 in reply to 19200

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    Wilber often says Ramana Maharshi is one of the wise sages of all time.  Ramana says if it is not present in deep dreamless sleep it is not real, and has said the world is illusionary, Brahman alone is real , Brahmman is the world. To me it seems Ramana could also be considered a Subjective Reality proponent. Consciousness itself never shows up on the screen of life only its creations shows up on the screen of life. How is this diferent from what Pavlina is puttig forth?
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  02-12-2007, 9:23 PM 19308 in reply to 19305

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    As a teacher, Pavlina appears to be addressing perennial developmental needs. Or, i.e. , perennial until an omega point makes his market niche obsolete. Looking over the aray of pragmatic councel he's produced, i see him as orienting 1st Tier toward 2nd.

    Even if the "home plate" of his approach is in the UL, the " pitch ", the intentionallity, i see him "swining at", motivated by, seems, to my novice perspective, to be integral. As far as i can tell, what Pavlina has put forth "runs the bases" of quadrants.

    Just as the needs he addresses are an on-going, sliding-scale set of imperitives (perceived or created), any one part of his program falls short of comprehensivity.

    Still, as a spectator of the descriptions, not having "gone to bat", embodied the practicable elements therein, i trust Holons' editor(s) to present instructive examples. And i trust myself to explore why.

    Sincerely,

    kcd


    'takes all kinds.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  02-14-2007, 5:26 PM 19353 in reply to 19305

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    True but partial?

    Pavlina's brand of subjective reality (which he only sometimes champions) seems to me to be UL fundamentalism - "me creating my reality moment by moment", rather than at best, me (small self) creating my experience of reality moment by moment (while I'm not dwelling in big mind, one taste, I-I).  I haven't seen Pavlina go to the lengths of RM in stating that this subjective reality he proposes must only exist in deep dreamless sleep (I-I - selfless god-consciousness) - to the contrary, his interest in the Secret would suggest a much different approach rooted in the small self.  Sort of a magical-worldview being applied to green realisations in the frontal persona.  Seems to me to be a hop-skip and a jump to boomeritis from there.

    I've found Pavlina to be true but partial, yet guilty of going beyond his station to explain truths in other quadrants from the UL perspective.  To that end, I find his work wonderful, yet difficult to be consdiered truly integral at times, and certainly not turquoise.

    I love this thread, (read: I need this thread to get some social proof that I'm not insane!).  Let's keep it going ;-)

    L.

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  03-07-2007, 2:17 PM 20205 in reply to 19200

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    I posted this on ~C4 Chaos' blog on Zaadz, but think it would be useful here as well.  It's a suggestion for alleviating all these debates, and making Holons News even better:

    Rather than inciting the regular debate on whether or not X is at Y level at the Holons News site, it might make more sense for the reporters/editors at I-I to reframe the levels section and make it full of recommendations for the various levels.  That way really Integral things would be able to fall into multiple levels, and Holons wouldn't be so full of crappy stuff for the more basic levels (wrestling, fundamentalist extremist religious stuff, etc.), and instead post healthy stuff for all the different levels.  Some things, like Steve Pavlina's blog, would be healthy and interesting for a range of levels, from Infra-red (Beige) all the way up to Turquoise, because he offers some good practical ideas for accomplishing many things including being: healthier by eating more fresh vegetables (Infra-red), a more loving and respectful parent (Purple), independent and effective (Red), useful (Amber), efficient (Orange), creative and tolerant (Green), more understanding of how societies work (Teal), able to make a living making the world a better place (Turquiose).  He's even got some good suggestions for seeing how your own shadow ego gets in your way (Indigo).

    Things that are less Integral, but still very healthy, like the organization Project for Public Spaces, that promotes better design for public spaces like streets and parks, would fit nicely into the levels from Infra-red up to Teal, since they cover things like basic physical health, good social environment, combining local control of communities with government policies, working with good scientific design, more beautiful and accessible streets, and systemwide restructuring for a more efficient environment for the whole, based on real social needs rather than traditional assumptions.

    And then there is stuff like the Teletubbies, which is pretty much only Magenta, but it's great stuff for people who need a little more love and belonging, and maybe adds a bit of Green creativity and tolerance for the audience.  Or a show such as Junkyard Wars, which pretty much only appeals to Red and Orange and maybe Green, but it does it so wonderfully!

    Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
    Turtle
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  03-12-2007, 2:56 AM 20500 in reply to 20205

    Re: Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality = Turquoise?

    Surely UL reductionism is an intellectual error that can be made at several stages and is not necessarily a sign of green?  People can be teal+ and still make mistakes, it's not like a complete understanding of AQAL is the measure of teal or turquiose.  I think knowing AQAL can potentially make the transition faster and reduce the chance of those sort of mistakes, but it is not neccessary to learn or adhere to it.


    Gavin

    Haunted by the familiarity of inner softness behind frozen eyes
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help