..Mission Statement..

"Integral Creatives" / "Eye See" is the full-spectrum partnership of Eliot Bissey and Jana Espiritu Santo, two people who care about beauty, meaning, goodness, truth and healthy growth in every dimension. We want and hope to inspire the evolutionary impulse in others through the integral perspective, which we attempt to represent in our creative endeavors. We commit heart, mind, body, soul and spirit to this ideal.

   Simply put, Integral theory seeks to subtly differentiate, holistically integrate, genealogically locate, and pluralistically honor all facets of human inquiry, knowledge and experience, in a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional whole. Our goal is to use integral meta-theory to communicate meaning in increasing depth and span of the stages, states, lines of development, and types (feminine/masculine) of consciousness and being. By using philosophy, humor, existentialism, science and spirituality as a backdrop for our creations, we invite and promote personal, interpersonal and global differentiation, integration, transformation and transcendence.

   Integral Creatives seek to incorporate integral meta-theory, as developed by Ken Wilber and others, into art and writing, expanding awareness in Self and Other through multi-modal explorations into the relationships between content and structure, light and shadow, agency and communion, differentiation and dissociation, manifest and unmanifest, integration and fragmentation, immanence and transcendence, absolute and relative, duality and non-duality. We explore how we are reflections of each other and of the entire spiral of development, and express that reflected and refracted full-spectrum light through a non-dual and other selected perspectives. We and our carefully chosen collaborators sincerely hope that you enjoy our “soundtrack” for the evolution of consciousness, or that it at least stimulates introspection, reflection, and contemplation.

   In the final analysis, we do not claim to be or posit ourselves as "integral"; integral, like "the truth" is not an end, but a path - a path we do our best to choose, moment to moment - a path towards non-duality, Home, where we recognize our identity, our Original Face. To quote Ramana Maharshi, "The world is illusory, Brahman  alone is real, Brahman is the world." Brahman, in this context, means the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity, the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise, the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and does not exist.

   Sincerely, 

      Eliot Bissey & Jana Espiritu Santo

Hey Eliot;
 I remember when you joined our integral salon and expressed some concern about calling ourselves "integral." Can you elaborate once more for me and our readers why you feel this is a dangerous word to label ourselves as artists and communities who seek to apply the integral framework? Thank you Eliot.
   Sincerely, Jana

 

 Eliot responds:

Hi Jana;

As I stated in our mission statement:

    "In the final analysis, we do not claim to be or posit ourselves as "integral"; integral, like "the truth" is not an end, but a path - a path we do our best to choose, moment to moment - a path towards non-duality, home, where we recognize our identity; to quote Ramana Maharshi,"The world is illusory, Brahman  alone is real, Brahman is the world" (Brahman, in this context, means the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity, the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise, the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and does not exist)."

   We "humans" are all over the place, from moment to moment. From the larger perspective, evolution "meanders", and in the smaller subjective perspective we are quite capable of being lucid, centered, and "integral" in one moment, and being completely off-center the next.

   "Integral" can be used as just another bullshit "label", like "Christian" (remember Jim and Tammy?) or "Republican"; true once in a while, in certain situations and instances, far more often (statistically, at the very least) a lie. If we are so stupid as to identify with the concept and the word, we just add a conclusion to our content (which we can look at), which co-enacts a hiding place for narcissism in the supporting structure. Of course it is good and healthy to develop stable values as we evolve (for example, to try to live by Christian principles of love, forgiveness, and non-judgement), these find their own new equilibriums as stage progression manifests. It is quite another thing to attach and identify with labels. What motive is behind this? Do we dare look within, without an agenda? Dr.Phil would ask,"What's your payoff?"

   We could simply say that we aspire to an integral standard in our lives, or that we seek to differentiate and integrate immanence and transcendence with loving and compassionate intelligence. But, unfortunately, accuracy and clarity take work. And, it doesn’t sound as cool.

   I'm afraid that this reminds me of a friend I had as a teenager, who meditated and read Krishnamurti a lot, and had some wonderful insights, but who eventually "went off the deep end" and "spun out".  After reading (too much? No, understanding too little) Krishnamurti, he started going around saying "I have no concepts" (think about it, it just keeps getting better), and stuff like that. My friend Lewis and I had a good laugh about it, until my friend became totally ungrounded and lost it completely, at which point it was no longer funny. Of course, I confronted him with direct inquiry (I feel a friend is owed at least one opportunity to redeem or condemn himself, within himself [which means that one offers, as lovingly as possible, a chance to check your authenticity]), and asked him how he reconciled fragmented perspectives within himself (with specific examples), at which point he became confused and withdrawn. He disappeared from our meditation group and spiritual community. Relativistic pluralism rears its ugly head yet again, this time with a darkly spiritual twist.

   Kenny and Andrew are always talking about people with 2nd tier cognition (lots of people, if you can deeply grasp the theory, you're there!), but with a 1st tier self-system center-of-gravity (99% of humanity; most likely, this means you!). They may, and often do, have flashes of integral consciousness (temporary higher state), but they are not stably 2nd or 3rd tier (permanent stage development). Let's not screw ourselves by attaching baggage (and a bad taste left in the mouth) to the word "integral", can't we learn from what happened to the words "God" and "love"? Listen carefully to how people use the word “Love”, and you may notice (if you are sensitively receiving the message AND the meta-message) that it is often “attachment” that is precisely meant and being shared in communication. How do you feel when someone announces them self as a "Person of God", or a "Person who God's love flows through"? Aren't we, at least sometimes, suspicious of their true intentions? What impulse compels one to raise themselves up in social stature with a pronouncement like that? Are they genuine, or is it "humble servant" on the outside and "I'm so spiritual" on the inside? Some people find it easier to believe their own lies when they can "sell" them to someone else first. In this case, that would take the form of getting people to call one "Integral", and then becoming comfortable with that adopted identity. I don't know about you, dear reader, but as my close friend Jana will attest, Southern California has NO shortage of relativistic pluralism (shot through with narcissism); let's not go out of our way to attract more, shall we? Seriously, it's rampant, out of control, and needs no further temptation from us. Besides, isn’t catering to the embedded comfort of the self-system center-of-gravity the job of bad shrinks and great marketing people; getting our egocentric contractions warm, cozy and settled in (and happy to pay for more headshrinking, or some product that promises to satisfy the emptiness in our hearts)?

   In my personal opinion, the danger of identifying with a label is insidious, as it just creates more conflict in the world (A is a Muslim vs. B is a Christian, C is 3rd tier vs. D is 2nd tier, E is integral vs. F is fragmented, democrat vs. republican, and so on). I always respond to the question, "What religion are you?" with, "I love the truth" for this reason. It's ironically humorous to me that when one is manifesting an integral consciousness, one is often unaware of it, and only upon reflection can one see the beautiful synchronicity that was tetra-enacting. The great work and extensive research of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi into flow states confirms this. It's better to quietly do behaviors in a flow state from an integral awareness (state or stage; we start right where we are, and do the best we can with what we’ve got to work with, right?), than to go around labeling this or that as integral or not (“I feel fat today, so you’re not as integral to me right now”). Let's just be and do as best we can, seeking to understand, and treasuring those rare moments of grace when we are understood. Just watch, before long some well-meaning joker (who deeply believes their own rap [High I.Q. first tier sukka M.C., whuzzwegonna do, dey yousta be WE) is going to start saying "Integral Fragments", or some variation of "I have no concepts" (I have integrated and transcended all concepts into no concept because I'm so integral, my beauty and goodness are merely bonuses)(LOL!).

   Like I’ve stated to you before, evil never gets less, it just gets less obvious. Infinite potential is ever-present, whether crudely or subtly. We are conduits of spirit (not the source) to the degree we are open. How open are we (quantity, magnitude)? Which spirit are we open to (quality, vector)? The differentiation of discernment (objective witnessing with clear unattached understanding) and judgement (subjective witnessing, with it's temptation to value ranking, not from an aperspectival/integral view with genealogical grounding, but merely from one's own embeddedness), is the crucial fulcrum here. Intention must be pure, clear, and unattached.

   We have enough trouble without setting landmines along our path; identification (I'm stuck here [and I’m not going to budge and you can’t make me!]), conclusion (my mind has stopped working [because I’m satisfied with the dead thought I arrived at]), and the subtle and not-so-subtle temptations of superiority and narcissism (and of course, their opposites) are some of the land mines in this terrain. The more we are aligned to (careful here, aligned to, not identified with, got it?) principle, the less messy experience we need to get the point, learn, and move forward.

   Let's lose the landmines and keep moving forward, shall we? Or, are we too in "love" with being "integral"?

   Yours in loving friendship,
      Eliot.

http://kenwilber.meetup/59

This meetup we had a special guest, Jason Digges from Integral Institute, who currently works in the audio engineering department in Integral Seminars and conferences (so he gets to hear pretty much everything!). Jason generously updated us on the Institutes goals and activities, while facilitating the session through his application of the IOS (Integral Operating System) with clarity, elegance and equisite beauty. He discussed the three native perspectives (1st, 2nd, & 3rd person perspectives) and their applications in thought and manifestation, and how the conscious awareness of these three perspectives (self, other, and nature) within ourselves can facilitate the change from using integral theory ("having" it as an object of thought, a map, a hobby, a 3rd person "it") to having a more integral awareness ("being" it, subjectively, AS subject, 1st person "I"). Jason went on to talk about the cutting edge in the modeling and application process at Integral Institute, and related how 3 levels (of modeling, not to be confused with levels/stages within a model) are being used: 1. the simplest; the 3 native perspectives, 2. the next level up; the four quadrants, 3. the "top", the interior and exterior perspectives available to us within each quadrant, which creates 8 possible perspectives (for example, interior upper left - content of consciousness; and exterior upper left - structure of consciousness). We sincerely thank Jason for sharing his love, energy, insights, and up-to-date information.

Jana & Eliot