Inhabit: Your Resistance

Originally published at:

Spiritual conversations often emphasize the importance of overcoming our resistance and accepting the world for what it is, exactly as it is. However, there are times when we don’t need to overcome our resistance, we need to fully inhabit our resistance. We can’t simply accept what is, we need to put ourselves on the line for what can and should be. How can we bring more mindfulness, skillfulness, and embodiment to our resistance, even while seeing everything as always-already perfect?

1 Like

Wow, Corey. I too am searching for how we can overcome mankind’s shadows, and become integral change agents, but have become lost in the shuffle, or better said, the polarity. After 20 years of being an interested dabbler in Integral theory, and enthusiastic listener on many talks and courses, I find myself remembering why I have been such an unsuccessful Integralist. Don’t get me wrong, as I am enlightened by Ken Wilbur’s works and deeply grateful for his incredible contributions. I guess I thought that the Integral community would be a movement of people who could most understand people at all levels, could most surf the spiral. But, I am at least one of those who you hero-shamed at the end of the podcast, just another “fucking Republican”. Prediction: Holding and expressing that view mirrors much of what is happening in our larger collective, has nothing to do with Integral as I have ever understood it, and bridges nothing. In the end, it will lead to just more division. If Integral is not that motor to surf the spiral with wisdom and compassion, then it will ultimately sink as the breakthrough movement it could have been. The talk today could have focused more broadly on all of the issues involved in the topic of racism in America and how we can consider these aspects as we champion integral solutions. The only way to make deep sense of this critical time is with wisdom and sense-making, humility and compassion. BTW, it strikes me that political racism is an endemic force right now, and it felt like that when you said it.

Hey Thomas, just to be 100% clear — when I said Romney is still “a fucking republican”, that was actually a statement of tolerance not division :slight_smile: I was responding to a comment that said “sure he supports BLM, but he still wants to defund social security.” My response was to say that we can still praise someone and give them due credit for coming out on the “right” side of an issue, even if they continue to hold other views you don’t agree with. In this case, Romney’s other political beliefs have nothing to do with his support for BLM, and rejecting that support because of his other views is totally non-productive.

As for me, I have many many disagreements with Romney, but I absolutely respect the fact that he showed up and hope that he can become the post-Trump face of the GOP. He is the kind of Republican I very much enjoy disagreeing with, because he doesn’t come off as a total political nihilist like the current constellation of GOP representatives have under Trump.

So yeah. I love me some healthy world-centric conservatives! I hold a number of conservative-aligned views myself (particularly around 2A). We need many more of them these days. So just remember that if you hear me criticizing the GOP, I am speaking about a particular social holon, and not about conservative views/values as a whole. Genuine conservatism is very different from the current GOP leadership, which has become rife with plain-sight corruption from where I am sitting.

1 Like

Amen to that, Corey. My thanks to you, Justin, and Ryan for a thought provoking conversation.

Thank you, Corey for your considered response. My larger point is that Integral Life states its inclusionary ethos, but it often feels exclusionary to someone like me. It seems that there is not much dialogue happening inside the Integral genome around a platform for way deeper discussions and inquiries into the prevailing realpolitik in Integral leadership, the world at large, etc. It appears to have already been settled, and not much outside that box is tolerated or esteemed. I am sure that our views would not coincide on everything you state above, and my limited perception is that most discussions sit in a polarity that closely mimics the Progressive left meme in the USA., and any alternate perspectives are second class, rube, unwoke or uninformed. That is too bad for all involved.The place that I try to explore and understand in my own practice are the myths that we all operate under, and how we can have extramythical dialogue on issues, with respect and humility. I do not fit the definitions or mischaracterizations that I read or hear about people who supposedly hold my views, including what I hear or read in many Integral discussions, yours included. This shows me that others offering these characterizations are missing something, or do not understand the ones who do not think the same. My thesis is that this has painted the Integral movement into a progressive corner, which is in the end not an integral outcome at all. I appreciate the work and dedication of you, Ken and many others, and see the intensity and dedication you show in everything. From often a way different vantage point than your own, peace!

1 Like

I’ve been working through the Integrating Polarities course and have stopped at the section Polarities in Poverty Racism and Sexism. Now, accepting that when you find a hammer everything looks like a nail, it resonated so much I’ve had to go back to it and think deeply.
One of the difficulties with this forum is that it doesn’t work well for having a real in depth approach to an issue. Who can be bothered to read a long post?
So, to the issue in hand. If there were room I guess Corey would be asking: Is the situation such that Mitt Romney is either a supporter of BLM or a Republican and where is the wisdom in that? Then ask can Mitt Romney be both a supporter of BLM and a Republican and where is the wisdom in that? We can then look to the fears: eg if Mitt Romney can support BLM and be a Republican, then what does that mean for our hatred of Republicans? Can we hold both the wisdom of “or” and “and”? And can we look to the fears each of those engenders?

There have been many voices who decry Integral and Integral Life discussions as too heady, too cognitive, too theoretical. The Inhabit episodes, from my point of view, are trying to address at least some of this by encouraging embodiment, rather than taking viewers/listeners on a full, mental-analytical tour of, say, the holarchy or whatever. In this episode, the opportunity is to inhabit this moment in time and culture around race issues, and to, as the title suggests, inhabit or embody one’s resistance to “business as usual.” To the extent that was indeed its aim, it mostly succeeded, in my experience of it.

While Ryan spoke little, I have to give him big kudos for stating and returning to a couple of times the importance of “heartbreak” in coming to awareness of racial horrors and injustices, and in committing to action. I don’t believe outrage, anger, or ‘righteous fury’ are the starting points for many white Americans around racial issues, so it’s important to not skip over these other responses to suffering that can also motivate action towards change.

On another point, while I see Justin’s perspective and agree in theory that it is up to whites to eradicate racism, it often doesn’t work this way in terms of legal reforms and such. If we applied this thought to other isms, then we would say it’s up to males to end sexual harassment, assault, and other forms of sexism against females–but we don’t see many males engaged with #metoo, for instance (or many females engaged with ending sexism against males). Or as applied to income/wealth inequality, we would have to say it’s up to the “monied” people to end that. I think in the human interiors, this kind of thinking applies in terms of development, but not so much in the exteriors. People who are “in power,” or hold power, often don’t want to give it up, whether that’s males, whites, or the 1%.

And speaking of sexism, some people consider the use of the internet slang term “Karen” to be a form of it. (I’m not all that invested in this subject, but will speak to it anyway.) As I understand, the term refers to middle-aged, upper middle-class white women who are “perceived to be entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is considered appropriate or necessary” or a woman who is “racist and using her white privilege to get her own way at the expense of others.” As a conservative writer I read stated, there is less talk/discussion of a Karen male-equivalent because white males have always been perceived as entitled or demanding, racist and using white privilege to get what they want. Another writer offered that an exact equivalent for ‘Karen’ is rare among men as males resort to violence rather than mere “pushiness.” Another one offers “Ken” as the name for the male equivalent, but you don’t hear much about that. And I know there are all kinds of internet terms for males of one kind or another (Chad, Kyle), and I appreciate this is a form of “get back atcha” as Black women and men have been stereotyped and called various names. Still, it doesn’t seem all that helpful. Just an opinion.

1 Like

It has nothing to do with supporting an integral belief system or ending racism. The BLM movement is a Marxist movement, as the co- founder states here;

This is belief system that our supposed integral community is supporting. It is also the ideology that has murdered and enslaved millions of Tibetan’s. There is no political intergalism allowed, only the support of a green marxist ideology. Not only fuck Republican’s fuck the Tibetan’s as well it seems. I will no longer be part of a community that blatantly lies and states it is inclusive, and yet curses anyone that disagrees with their hateful ideology. The integral movement is dying, because a few green zealots have high jacked it with their hateful political, and non inclusive politics

Seems the Integral as the Progressive/Marxist “intellegensia” discussion isn’t new at all.

Does the Integral movement fall into the trap of “the end justifies the means” and therefore highly non-Integral, non-Inclusive positions are somehow Integral in the end?

Indeed - it has been firmly established that by your own definition you yourself are a Marxist.

“The end justifies the means” is one of those false dilemmas that was good for a movie in the 1980’s but makes no sense outside oft that.

The reality is that the means ALWAYS creates the end. If you cook with poisonous ingredients, the end result is a poisonous cake. You cannot create a sweet final product from shit ingredients.

So this whole namecalling thing of “Marxist” “Progressive” - dividing humanity into those in your group against those who are not in your group - that’s makes a real “shit cake” for you that you are eating and you are deluding yourself that it is chocolate.