Reloading: The Leading Edge of the Leading Edge

Standing Ovation for this dialogue!..

Indeed it is one of the first dialogues that I could read to its end without turning away ;-) since a long time.

Nevertheless it seems that here are two guys asserting their role as leaders of the leading edge, only this time clearly meshing state and stage into something they then call third tier. Yet if Kosmocentric is the hallmark of this tier as both claim, then what is in between worldcentric (final stage 1st tier) and kosmocentric (first? stage of thrid tier)?

I think the whole construct beyond yellow and turquoise is so extremely shaky in its basics, and there is so little evidence (you can read Cook-Greuters in different ways, and who else is there?)… that to theorize as these two gentlemen do, and go from their own anecdotal experiences, interpreted in a very peculiar (to these gentlemen) way, is not worth much, except to … well, assert themselves as being l.e. of l.e.
As a matter of fact it is their obsession with leadership which - in my eyes - really shows that they're not really getting what is actually coming out of a move from the 'I am' centeredness towards the possible “we-centeredness” that is being inquired into by brave pioneer-wefullnesses all over the planet..

Don't get me wrong; I understand and see that at the present stages of development as humanity we do need leadership in the classical sense - but for the transpersonal self and transcendent self to make any sense beyond the traditional spiritual sense (and both are really traditionalists in spite of their quasi-postmodern language) there must be an exploration of the “we” by “us” in very practical, open and enquiring ways beyond theoretical preconceptions. We are just in the very beginning of gathering data and experiences of some newly developing stages… and they are not speaking about any of them!
 
And in my view it will be the “we” that does the next steps, not some l.e. leaders of the l.e. - I'm sure. In other words, we will NOT return to some old models but ACTUALLY include what has developed in the step beyond.

(And just an aside; it is not very clear what happens to the highly transcendent “I am”ness that these gentlemen allude to, the “witness” - be it personal, transcendant or as they now propose transpersonal. From the few experiences I've had of the Living Field of a vibrant and very aware We: There is no “I am” there; there is a strong feeling and knowing of “We are”; and it might just be that this “We are”ness might expand much more; I don't know…)

I hear your points - yet I do not agree ;)

To actually see these guys understand “we” they would have to show evidence of that, and I can't see any. I've done a lengthy critique of Andrew Cohens critical misunderstanding of that - showing how his misunderstanding works, and is really a disservice to the field of research. I don't know about Wilber, but from what I gather his understanding might be superb theoretically (even though I doubt it, but ok I'll just take it that it is good enough for now), in practise it doesn't show that.

So they might understand WE in a mental sort of way, they sure don't live it out in meat-space… how then can they lead? I may be simplistic but I see that at maximum they could lead a discourse (and they do) but that's about all. A Ria Baeck or Helen Teetchen-Beeth have tons of more understanding from actually researching it and living the consequences in their lives…

So how could they research advanced fields of this when they aren't really embarking on the beginning stages? That remains a riddle to me…

And yes, there is hardly any discussion of this in the ordinary media. I think there is other magazines that publish interesting stuff but these two are only published in WIE, which is good enough from my point of view.

And just by the way, the whole stage and state distincition is breaking down in this dialogue as they mesh it in ways that are contradictiory in itself. Which I don't mind - I usually think that a good measure of contradiction is a sign of aliveness…

To put it provocatively, this is just plain propaganda…

I'm with Mushin on this matter and I'll add objections based on moral grounds and the conflation of the lines of development.
As long as the motives of these guys to increase profits and prestige remains, I can't accept the integrity of thier perspectives. I've found it all too useful to follow the money and the ego to reveal what is often over-looked. If we include the perspective in this video, how can we not see them as corrupt?
The circumstantial body of evidence has been streadily growing throughout the years; from the high priced seminars, trademarking, to the exclusivity demonstrated with the bias of thier own authority in opposition to the WE, I find them disingenuous.
Right here at Zaadz we find ads for Integral Christianity. WTF, integral chrisianity? Gimme a frickin break! Until they include these partial truths, they're peddling snake-oil, imao. Really smart and charismatic snake-oil salesmen, yeah, but…
Through the years I have asked myself, “what would a truely enlightened and informed person do?” That's what has motivated me to aspire to become an integral activist.

Have you read what I wrote on his way of conducting 'the process'? If you had you would understand that I wrote it from having read the then available documentations of the process… So yes, it doesn't amaze me that AC's students are all in the clouds about a process their teacher leads (and try to be really great when they lead it themselves). I had students like that in my time as a guru, so that doesn't amaze me.

What would amaze me was a critical appraisal of the process by an 'outsider' to the cult/spiritual movement/hmmm, what do we call this? Someone who actually has had different experiences in different contexts. People like Otto Scharmer, for instance. His interviews with people (some of who had experience with processes in which deep we-fullness appears) are still state of the art years after they have happened.
This dialogue hasn't added anything worthwhile to those reports/interviews, except positioning KW and AC as leaders, and also meshing up old topics of theirs, now with the slant of calling - what previously had been called non-dual enlightenment which was at length explained to be a state - that a stage! All the old characteristics are now staged as third tier and connected with a developmental stage… and suggesting between the lines that they are among the handful of people who have actually reached that stage. NOW WHAT IS NEW ABOUT THAT?

So let me take this quote of AC as example (underlining and bold by me):

A Kosmocentric Perspective

A Kosmocentric perspective is one in which the awakening human being begins to see his or her own emotional, psychological, and spiritual experience, in the present moment, as potentially being the very furthest reaches of the evolution of the interior of the Kosmos. And this is not just an inspirational metaphor; it's literally true. I live in the knowledge, awareness, and understanding of this fact every single day. This is what brings the sacred dimension of life into everyday awareness—when you realize your own experience of consciousness itself from one moment to another is potentially the leading edge of the possible.

Just spoke with a student of Andrew who told me that when he's around usually we-fullness never unfolded in the same depth as when it was 'just' some students.

If that doesn't say a lot, I don't know…

I like your approach, dear friend, even if my stance is much more skeptical as I've been confronted with a lot of hurt, abuse and even violence by some of the guys we're here speaking about.

Life is indeed great! Great enough for us to differ AND to collaborate…

So, just in this dialogue KW and AC are meshing up state and stage into one third tier stage of evolution.
They agree to call this stage kosmocentric - and I've said what needs to be said about that above using the AC definition of what it means from his very website.
That's pretty concrete :-)