Inhabit: Your Spiritual Life

Originally published at:

Need help shifting gears from mental map-making to actually inhabiting the spiritual territory? Watch as Ryan Oelke and Corey deVos explore what it means to truly inhabit and integrate our contemplative practice and our moment-to-moment experience of life.


My question would be with this drive to reach Integral’s tipping point at 10% and with Ken’s estimation right now that the world is driving towards an orange/green state structure but still having a gross/egoic state center, does integral also have an allergy (if that is the right use of the word) to a subtle-state center. And in your guys opinion what would the differences between someone at an integral structure center of gravity but one with a gross/egoic state center compared to someone at a subtle/soul state center. Ken also talks about developing a soul culture. What would that look like to you guys? Thanks

I think this is a really great question, and there are probably a lot of different ways we could try to answer it. Personally, from my own layman’s perspective, it seems to me that much of this has to do with how one’s state CoG relates to the rest of the major elements and polarities of the self system:

  • At what structural altitude is the state CoG being enacted? How do those structural views and values influence or limit the ways that state CoG is being expressed?

  • Is the subtle CoG integrated with gross states in a healthy way? Or is it dissociated from the gross realm? It seems to be that it would need to be adequately integrated with the gross, otherwise it’s not stable state-realization as much as it is flitting and fleeting state-chasing.

  • Is the emphasis being placed upon the subtle as an ongoing source and crucible for transformation, or is it being used as a way to better translate the separate self and it’s place in the universe?

  • Are the state realizations being used to edify the self, or the Self?

  • Is there some sort of healthy “linkage” between the UL phenomenology of these states, the UL structures containing those states, and the various expressions and artifacts of consciousness in all other quadrants?

So I wouldn’t say Integral has any kind of allergy to a subtle-state CoG per se, but rather it has some fairly important cautions around how we discern and enact our own CoG, how confusing the subtle realm itself can be, and how well integrated our state attainment is with the rest of the self-system. And because the “imaginal” realm of spirituality is itself a particular manifestation of subtle consciousness, I see some potential traps here that can prevent people from truly and fully stabilizing these states, allowing many folks to be seduced by their own drive to generate meaning for themselves, and therefore confusing state-seeking for stable state-realization, which can keep some folks locked in their own phenomenological experience. Which strikes me as a particularly troublesome shadow that can develop at these intersections of conscious development. If we can avoid these kinds of shadows, then I think something like a “soul culture” is totally possible. But we need guard rails, I think, so we don’t fall off the mountain completely.

It’s by no means a comprehensive answer, but hopefully enough to keep the conversation moving. Thanks for the question, and let me know what you think about the above!

Thanks Corey. There’s a lot to process there. Some of the main points I pulled out of your response initially are: 1) yes hopefully subtle would be integrated with gross. 2) great key word: state realization. And also: state chasing. You mention it possibly being a shadow. Very good points and big ideas there. I’m trying to think/envision what state chasing would look like and when it would be a “bad” thing. I think drug addiction can be like that. Chasing getting high.
Is being stable in a state “state realization”? Or just aware of what state you are in?
I always assumed Integralists would come with a subtle state center of gravity. Percentage wise I wonder what it would be if you split up Integralists. I think Ken mentioned that he thought 85 percent of Integralists don’t walk the talk (hoping I’m pulling that correctly). I wonder if the divide is the state CoG.