I think it’s time to applaud the amazing summer for the magnificent Campaign Obama. David Axelrod, David Plouffe and company have succeeded in bringing home their central campaign theme, campaigning fiercely and boldly so that America knows exactly what Obama stands for:

“I am not a terrorist sympathizer.”

“I am not a closet Muslim, a black nationalist radical.”

“I am not single-handedly responsible for the rise in gas prices.”

“I’m against drilling for oil, but not so much that I would stop it.”

“I am not going to let people question my patriotism.”

“I am not going to let people say I’m going to raise taxes on Americans making $42,000 a year.”

“I don’t disrespect our wounded veterans overseas.”

“I am not an empty-headed celebrity like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.”

“My supporters are not foolish, Kool Aid drinking, Dungeons and Dragons playing imbeciles.”

“Taking a stand on the beginning of life is above my pay grade.”

Notwithstanding Obama’s consistent, often-repeated message about John McCain…

“John McCain, let’s face it, he’s got a compelling biography.”

“John McCain is a man who is a genuine American hero and has served his country with distinction.”

All of which is succinctly summed up in the campaign’s new tag-line:

“I am not the Messiah.”

And last week’s winning theme:

“I may be a multimillionaire, but I’m not as rich and successful as John McCain.”

With such a strong and unmistakable message, it’s positively dumbfounding how Obama could possibly be lagging in the polls. It must be that many Americans are just too bitter to appreciate his message.

(cross-posted at TPMCafe)

Technorati Tags: Obama, politics

On June 6, I relaunched my Weblog after an extended period of lethargy/semi-hiatus. I’m still tinkering with the blog template, design, and overall editorial plan, but I feel that I’m on track to making this Weblog an important part of my writing endeavors. My goal is to provide virtually daily content to my readers on topics related broadly to “sex, culture, politics, spirit” with an Integral slant.

Now begins the slow march from obscurity and invisibility to fame and fortune. Yeah, right. Some writers say that fewer than 2 percent of Americans have reached a truly integrated level of consciousness. I don’t claim to know the precise number of Integrally aware folks. However, I believe that Integral remains very marginal in our culture (though it probably has a disproportionate relative influence).

I will count this Weblog a success if I can provide an alternative voice in the national (US) dialogue advocating for more comprehensive, inclusive, and evolutionary perspectives on life. My first month’s traffic figures indicate that I have a long ways to go before this Weblog becomes more than an extremely tiny blip on the blogosphere’s radar screen. My Web server logs for joe-perez.com show approximately 2,700 unique visitors who visit an average of 2.18 times and read 3.82 pages on each visit. That comes to approximately 90,000 hits and about 790 MB of bandwidth. (SiteMeter, notorious for underreporting actual traffic, has dramatically lower numbers.) Let’s see where it goes from here.

Thanks to all my visitors for making joe-perez.com a part of your Internet voyages. Extra love for those who comment and e-mail! I hope you keep coming back.

P.S.: If you have any ideas for improving your Weblog reading experience, or if you want to help out in any way (guest bloggers? contributors?), please don’t be shy. Just comment or drop me a line.

Technorati Tags: blogs, Joe Perez, traffic

Originally posted on May 17, 2007.

By email, T. T. comments (in part, more to follow):

I’ve been following your stuff in Until and The Integral Christian for a bit now, and I’ve appreciated your writing quite a bit. We are different persons in different places, so naturally not everything connects, but a lot does. A couple of recent things have really hit home: “Working and Communicating with Atheists” on The Integral Christian and one on “encouraging” on Until. These pieces really resonated with me, and I want to thank you for writing them.

In particular, I was pleased to see someone make a clear delineation of vertical vs. horizontal, and how spiritual practice might bring an amber Christian non-dual awareness, but might not necessarily take them to orange. Surely there is some overlap and intertwining, but I think these axes are too easily and too often conflated, and I appreciate a voice seeking to untangle them. I wonder if the converse is true — Can changing life conditions move someone along horizontally without any significant vertical development?

By way of background, I just reread “The W-C Lattice” in Wilber’s Integral Spirituality 9P. 88-93). Recall that Wilber wrestles with this concern: “The test case became: in whatever way that we define enlightenment today, can somebody 2000 years ago–say, Buddha or Christ Jesus or Padmasambhalva–still be said to be ‘enlightened’ or ‘fully realized’ or ’spiritually awakened’ by any meaningful definition?” He presents the W-C Lattice, and then says “What you can see in figure 4.1 is that a person at any stage can have a peak experience of a gross, subtle, causal, or nondual state. But a person will interpret the state according to the stage they are at.” [In Kronology, btw, I am tentatively working with a model with 12 stages and 12 states, or 144 possibilities].

So back to your question, “Can changing life conditions move someone along horizontally without any significant vertical development?” Yes, I think. Here’s an example. The various cycles of life as researched by Erickson, et. al. describe sets of concerns from infancy to early childhood, middle childhood to juvenile, young adult to 30-year transition, mature adulthood, dying/end of life stages, etc. I think it’s pretty obvious that certain realizations are more likely at sone stages rather than others. Mystical realizations may be encountered in dying moments. Magical moments can be had in early childhood. Rebellious teenagers fire up rationalist experiences. In the course of a lifetime, a person will likely have encountered most (if not all) of the major states of consciousness, even if these states are interpreted through the lense of two or three significant horizontal stages. So a person may remain at amber their whole life but experience the “stages of life” as offering progress through a variety of seemingly higher stages. In actuality, the higher stages are not vertical enlightenment (the person never leaves amber to ascend to orange), but temporary state-structures.

That’s how it seems to me. Corrections or suggestions are welcome. There are probably more clear and concise ways of describing this phenomena.

Technorati Tags: integral, spirituality

Originally posted on May 15, 2007.

Peter Savastano has given me permission to excerpt a bit from an email he sent me today:

You and I have a lot in common. I have studied astrology for over 25 years (Tropical, Sidereal, and Hindu). I have also studied the writings of Ken Wilber for at least 12 years, on-and-off, and I have been a student of Zen meditation since 1980 (I am 56).

Like you, I was raised Roman Catholic and I even tried my hand at monastic life back in the early 70s, first as a Trappist and then as a Little Brother of the Gospel (based on the vision of Charles de Foucauld (no, not Michel Foucault, though I adore MF). I also lived at the Catholic Worker in NYC for a brief respite between monastic orders (yes, struggling with coming out as a gay person isn’t a straight path, as I know you know, so I often had to leave the monastery in order to attempt to deal with my sexuality in a more conducive setting).

I too have tried to hang on to my Christian (Catholic) roots in whatever way I can, but often only by a thread. One of the ways I managed to do that over the years, minimal as it is, is by being involved with the Quakers, though the Quakers never seem to quite hit the g-spot of my heart in the way I long for their view to do so.

These days I am avidly reading the writings of Rudolf Steiner (Have you tried your hand at him?). His spiritual vision really speaks to me (perspectival as it as, but then again what view isn’t?). I have also been drawn from time to time to esoteric forms of Christianity. Essentially I have had to learn, as it seems you have too, to make my way in the world of Spirit trusting solely in my inner guide or the inner Christ, or Buddha, or whatever I seem to call it presently. I also have a great interest and attraction to shamanic healing and I have taken quite a few workshops on shamanic techniques.

Yes, I am a hodge-podge of spiritual searchings, longings, practices, the way of most gay men, I have come to believe and accept, since no tradition will seem to have us without some concession of our beings to their authority structures and rigid dogmas and doctrines.

I am currently making my way through KW’s “Integral Spirituality.” Gosh, I admit this is a very long winded way of introducing myself to you. Please forgive me for going on and on.

At any rate, my purpose for writing is to thank you for “Soulfully Gay” and for “Until” and “Integral Christian.” Your book was a true boon to me at a time of great suffering and inner darkness. I only recently finished it but didn’t want to let too long go by before I wrote to express my gratitude and appreciation to you…

Technorati Tags: Soulfully Gay

Two more responses to the “Trinity” poem. Don writes:

Joe, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with the involution part of KW’s integral theory since it is something that is inferred rather than observed. Note that in places he has said that involution did not happen in time. I guess I’m unclear how that could be. Also I would be happier if the theory were, at least in part, falsible, i.e. if it made predictions about things not yet known, which could then be tested and, if the experiment did not turn out as predicted, which would negate the theory. (Of course the idea of “falsibility” is not itself falsible, so that concept is a basic assumption, albeit one that pertains to everything within science.)

To which ralph opines:

don, read ’soulfully gay’. it’ll give you a lot better idea, not only where he’s coming from, but what he is attempting to do with this addition to aqal. ralph

Ralph continues in another email to the list:

i wasn’t going to say anymore because i haven’t yet digested it myself, but how can one remain silent at the dawning of a new day, even if one has little idea what it may bring? wilber has described–i can’t remember where–telos as a certain tilt to the kosmos, also called eros, pulling us towards Unity, to use a term of joe’s. i’ve always felt uncomfortable about this because it seems to reduce our role in this kosmic play to wisely surrendering to this tilt, or foolishly resisting it. and i’m constantly having to ask myself ‘why am i being so foolish?’ after all, i know what the wise thing to do is. why do i have to be so perverse? having glimpsed joe’s answer, my first reaction is ‘of course! what he’s explicitly pointing out to us has been there all along in what ken has been saying and doing, but only implicitly.

i’m reminded of fred kofman’s going to wilber with a question about the twently tenets of SES. he was troubled by ‘thanatos’ being posited as the complement to ‘eros’. why not ‘agape’? excellent question, because, in fact, ‘agape’ does seem to me to play the role of the primary complement to ‘eros’ in SES. wilber just failed to make this explicit. same thing here, i believe.

both the guru and the pandit talk about a duty, a responsibility they have in regard to the evolution of the kosmos, i.e. to the workings of eros. but they are motivated, in carrying out this duty, in reaching out to all of us, by agape. there does indeed seem to be a telos at work here, and joe has explicitly identified it.

this is really huge. it means we are pulled, not by none, not by one, but by two teli (or whatever the plural of telos is). the integral approach is, of course, to include both in our reckoning. this is definitely a much more interesting kosmic play than heretofore imagined. and, as wilber indicates in the latest chapter from the terrorist trilogy, the negative complements, ‘thanatos’ and ‘phobos’, of ‘eros’and ‘agape’ also need to be taken into account. our view of the play is only getting more interesting, more inclusive of what was already going on, anyway.

Here’s a dictionary that says the plural of telos is teloi, so I’m going with it.

“Trinity” is offered not as a falsifiable theory, but as a prose poem. It is an invitation to imagination and exploration and wonder. If you feel comfortable doing so, write about it. Create a responsive poem. Create a falsifiable theory of it, or explore what a falsibiable theory might look like. As the poet, I cannot offer any one definitive interpretation. The poem’s meaning is multifaceted, and includes the response of the community of readers.

I will say, however, that Ralph is correct that there is a connection between the twin teloi of Spirit–involution and evolution–and the explorations in my book, Soulfully Gay. I won’t say any more at this time so as not to spoil any plot points, but I will note that in my opinion the last 19 pages of the book begin to spell out what involution looks like. And yes, like Wilber, I would concur that involution cannot really be perceived within the continuum of time. That part’s in the book, too.

Unfortunately, I am not able to provide a falsifiable injunction for involution such as “Step 1. Step outside of space and time. Step 2. Look about you.” It just wouldn’t be wise to do so, even if I thought it was that simple. Instead, I have offered my book as an account of my own experiences, and those who read the book and are comfortable drawing parallels to their own experience can begin asking some fruitful questions and, perhaps, imagining what the proper set of injunctions might be to falsify the notion that involution has a telos, if such a thing is imaginable.

One possible set of injunctions for confirming the truth of “Trinity” leaps to mind immediately! “Step 1. Be born as Joe Perez in September, 1969. Step 2. Write a journal called ‘Soulfully Gay’ in 2003 and 2004. Step 3. Have the experiences resulting in “Trinity” in 2004 and describe them as they happened. Step 4. Send the manuscript of your journal to Ken Wilber.” etc., etc. LOL.

Warning: asking “How can I falsify a theory of involution?” is a difficult inquiry. The answers to such a question might be as troublesome, and the explorations as uncomfortable, as attempting to answer such a hypothetical question as, “Why would God send his only begotten son to be crucified on a Cross? How can I prove that such an act was necessary or unnecessary?” We are really treading into the realm of the great stories and great symbols and mysteries here.

Technorati Tags: involution, poetry

Originally posted on June 21, 2007.

Peter writes:

It’s interesting that you posted this discussion in response to Bruce Alderman since I am in the midst of trying to come to terms with this issue myself, especially as I read through Ken Wilber’s “Integral Spirituality.” While I understand where you are coming from, especially since at this point in your own journey the need to “belong” to a “Tradition” seems to be strong, yet I wonder how your thinking on this meshes with Wilber’s admonition to, as he puts it, SUPPLEMENT (p. 115)? Also, Wilber writes, “Notice individuals who have been practicing one path for a decade or more, and you will often see a gradual
closing of their minds, a narrowing of interests, and as they go deeper into spiritual state experiences but don’t have an integral Framework tocomplement their plunge into Emptiness, or Ayin, or Godhead, or Holy Spirit. The result is that they become closed off to more and more parts of the world, which can actually lead to a regression to amber or fundamentalism or absolutism. They become both deep mystics and narrow fundamentalists at the same time” (p. 118). How, Joe, do you mesh what you write in response to Alderman’s inquiry with what Wilber writes here? What do you understand Wilber to mean by SUPPLEMENT, or
by an “integral Framework to complement their plunge into” (take your choice of terms for ultimate reality)…? Also, if you are looking for cohesiveness in the Anglican tradition, good luck. Have you ever read Jay Johnson’s “Dancing with God, Anglican Christianity and the Practice of Hope”? (Johnson is a gay man and an Episcopal Priest as well as an academic in the philosophy of religion and an incredible guy, on top of it all). Or Father/Roshi Bob Kennedy’s (He is both a Jesuit and Zenmaster simultaneously) “Zen Gifts for Christians” and/or “Zen Spirit/Christian Spirit”? These writings suggest that eventually you will have to fan out if you are to truly take an integral spiritual approach (Unless I am misreading Wilber, Johnson and Kennedy, which is always possible in my own little corner or the Universe). Of course, if you have ever visited the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, you know that there is there an altar to Buddha, a Native American Shrine, a huge altar with a clear quartz crystal on it, not to mention that for years the Sufi’s held the Dances of Universal Peace there. If you are looking for the cohesion of Roman Catholicism in the Episcopal Church, I fear you will be quickly thwarted. In manyways, the Episcopalians are like the Quakers, except with Eucharist anda rich liturgical and sacramental life. I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this.

Thanks for the questions! I appreciate the opportunity for clarity. One at a time.

I agree wholeheartedly with Wilber’s recomendation to Supplement! But he’s talking about supplementing Zone-1 (contemplative) spiritual practices within a given path, with extra-Zone 1 methodologies (such as structuralism and Foucauldian/Nietzschean historiography, an approach which builds upon cross-cultural research and is not accessible via methodologies of introspection). I don’t see Wilber as advocating supplementing one spiritual path with additional spiritual paths (he’s not saying supplement your Judaism with a touch of Jainism and a little Islam, etc.) I do plenty of supplementing already, beginning with complementing contemplation with stage analysis (Wilber/SDi), so I wouldn’t leave any of that supplemental work behind.
I have not read Jay Johnson’s book, but I will add it to my reading list. btw, I’m so much seeking doctrinal conformity in the Episcopal Church, but rather a “home base” from which I can be as ordinary or adventuresome on my spiritual path as I feel called to be. The Church’s “generous orthodoxy” appeals to my need for breathing room coming from a stifling Roman Catholic tradition which seems to leap on every doctrinal innovation and progression as a dangerous heresy to be squelched.
I’ve been hanging out on the fringes of the new age movement for several years (men’s mythopoetic work, paganism, shamanism, astrology, etc.), so “fanning out” to explore wisdom outside of Christianity isn’t a major concern with me. My spiritual path will always have span, a certain openness to new practices and truth wherever it can be found. But I am called at this stage of my journey towards greater depth–specifically depth in a Christian contemplative form. I could go into depth in, say, the study of astrology, but that’s not the direction I feel called to deepen.

Perhaps my most important calling now is the call to simplify my lifestyle. I see this above all as a Christian calling towards a life of poverty in spirit–taking simplicity, peace, quietude, lack of distraction as an ideal. I don’t need to join the Episcopal Church to simplify my life! But as part of a process of understanding my call to simplicity within a Christian context, it’s better to have a church than to have none! Community is better than go-it-alone spirituality, which is largely what the new age has been about for me.

Technorati Tags: Christianity

Originally posted on June 8, 2007.

I am a gay man and the son of a minister. He is of the UCC denomination but only jumped on the “open and affirming” movement when I came out. I bought your book today, and just finished the God is Gay chapter. I have always identified my resentment toward organized religion, and my father, separately: but after reading this chapter, specifically T.I.O.B.G, stuff fizzled up in my inner being that I didn’t even know was there. (I cried for probably the 5th time in 10 years)

I just want to say thanks…and I haven’t even finsihed the book (though at the rate I am going, I will be done tomorrow). I recently started my own intense self reflection and spiritual journey. I really connect.

BTW- I think the harmonious way you phrase otherwise difficult stuff makes you a poet—-in a sense.

Enjoy the book, Adam. T.I.O.B.G. gets “finished” as a concept in the Deeper Connections chapter and modeled in “Bridge of Light”, so the whole book continues the T.I.O.B.G. meditation in a sense. And blessings on your journey.

Technorati Tags: Soulfully Gay

Thanks for being born, man!

Technorati Tags: Soulfully Gay

I recently finished reading your book Soulfully Gay, and I just wanted to congratulate you on the publication of such a beautiful memoir and to thank you for writing it. While I cannot surpass Ken Wilber’s fulsome praise of your life and work, please know that this straight Benedictine monk was and is greatly inspired by your example. Also, please know that you are in my thoughts and prayers.With every good wish and blessing,
Gregory P., O.S.B.

Technorati Tags: Soulfully Gay

Starting out, I’d prefer if you keep my name to yourself, but I had to write to you. A week or two ago, I was in a bookstore and spotted a single copy of your book on the shelf. I pulled it out, opened up to a page—and was somewhat shocked—because in that particular entry, you were writing about me. I used to write a blog about being gay / bi-sexual (whatever I am) and Christian at the same time, focusing on what I thought at the time was my path to becoming exgay. (I said something like turning away from homosexuality and toward god)

I’d probably still be on that path, but a little more than a year ago, I met someone. The blog entries became fewer and fewer as our relationship grew more and more. I love him; I’ve never loved anyone before. He’s the best thing that’s ever happened to me. I feel somewhat hypocritical—I’ve become what I told others I’d never become: just happy with who I am. Mostly. I’m not out to a lot of people. Mostly close friends. My church found out about my boy friend being gay (let me explain, they seem to think we’re just roommates and that he’s gay and I’m not) and one of the pastors made a huge deal out of it. My boy friend won’t go back to the church (I don’t blame him) and they told me I had to move out, or that I couldn’t do any of the leadership type things they had me doing. I haven’t been back to the church since then either, as much as I loved it there. It surprised me a lot, their reaction, being that it’s a hugely progressive group of over 2,000.

Anyway, I don’t really know why I’m writing to you. I told myself I would when I saw the entry. I don’t write the blog anymore, but have thought about starting a new one. Being that most of my friends before I met my boy friend are Christians, I can’t turn to them to talk about this stuff. Being in a relationship is hard enough, dating a guy for the first time in my life when everyone in my life tells me that’s wrong is, well, interesting, to say the least. It was nice to see what you wrote—I’d vaguely recalled reading it online, I think a while back. I’m sure I promptly dismissed it back then.

Technorati Tags: Gay, Soulfully Gay, youth