You're cordially invited to ROAR. Jordan here,

You're cordially invited to submit a paper for the inaugural issue of ROAR, the new Research in Applied Relatefulness Journal.

This is a powerful endeavor to

• build our communal body of knowledge
• cross-pollinate new insights, failures, and best practices
• celebrate all the incredible practitioners, innovations, and generally showcase the community

We believe relatefulness has a lot to contribute to civilizational knowledge and inquiry about intersubjective awareness, communication, group facilitation, and the strengths and limitations of our how these practices interface and apply to other fields of study. 

What kinds of papers?

(1)  Cross-modal integration: what happens when relatefulness meets other frameworks in practice? eg: IFS & relatefulness, functional medicine and relatefulness (coming in the first issue)

(2) Practitioner Case Reports: internal relatefulness experiments and best practices. eg: a particular exercise, event flow, or structure 

(3) Field notes / failure reports. failures and lessons learned. eg: 

(4) Theoretical & philosophical contributions exploring the conceptual foundations of relatefulness and advancing new frameworks. eg: I'll be publishing an article version of my Relateful Camp 2024 talk "How Not to Start a Cult"

This is meant to help us see all of our play and exploration as research (because it is) and take part in the larger, ongoing human conversation by being more visible, citable, and propagating what we're doing, what works, and what doesn't, so everyone can learn from everyone and iteration can happen faster. 

Why you?

You get to be a founding contributor to a new field, your work becomes citable, you build credibility as a practitioner-researcher, and you get visibility within a growing community.

If you're not sure, post an abstract to the ROAR UpTrust group and people will weigh in and give you feedback.

Why now?

I'm just really excited for the experiential knowledge interchange for the sake of itself. That said...

We're in an era where our globe's biggest problems require coordinating across wildly different perspectives with very distinct values and desires. 

Relatefulness can be a key contributor to emerging social-psychotechnology (consciously created intersubjective infrastructure) to help people communicate, and find internal peace and sanity amidst unprecedented pace of transformation.

Submission Deadline 

Track 1: March 15th. Your article will be ready for the Camp Preview; a physical artifact at the chow hall at camp that proves the concept and inspires people to submit.

Track 2: May 15th. Full Founding Issue This gives the broader community a real runway to write something worth publishing. The full issue goes up on relateful.com, gets a downloadable PDF, and is available on Amazon.

Details

Formats:
Practitioner case reports (1,000-2,000 words), cross-modal integration papers (2,000-4,000 words), Field notes / failure reports (500-1,500 words); Theoretical / philosophical contributions (2,000–5,000 words)

Review/editorial process.
Submission:
1) Submit draft to a private UpTrust group, anytime starting day of announcement
2) Get community feedback (this is not quality control and you should not assume that all comments are good, it just helps the community get involved in our style) Editorial review proceeds on its own timeline and does not depend on community response. 
3) Editorial review: v1 at least Jordan Myska Allen will review, whether or not you get comments before approval depends largely on the number of submissions; we may expand to a founding editorial board (TBA)
4) Accepted articles will be published in the following:

Distribution/format.
- announced on TTT email list
- announced on Substack
- a linkable, indexable page on relateful.com
- a downloadable PDF
- A printed copy that people can order through amazon (this may not be ready by Relateful camp. But we will have at least one printed copy at the chow hall)

Guidelines:

• Abstract (150-300 words) (unless field notes/failures- (50–150 word abstract is fine)
• Author info: name, relevant background (facilitation credentials, affiliation with Relateful Company, professional practice, academic training, whatever establishes your credibility in the domain you're writing about, and contact email (for editorial use only, not published))
• Originality statement (A line confirming the work hasn't been published elsewhere and is the author's own)
• Conflicts of interest / disclosure: (any relevant personal/financial stakes)
• Permissions (If you reference specific client work/sessions in a practice that emphasizes confidentiality, this confirms you have consent or have sufficiently anonymized)
• Voice: first, second, and third person are all welcome (I, we, it) but no need to label them; use whatever constructs enact the experience you're hoping to communicate, including shifting views if needed. We can't study the relational while pretending there's no I or we. (Drawing from Integral Methodology Pluralism).
• References/citations: We're not imposing APA formatting on practitioners bc we think it'll kill submissions. if you reference someone's work, name them and link to it. 
• Co-authored pieces should list all contributors with individual author info. Designate one corresponding author for editorial communication.
• Authors retain copyright; Relateful Company has permission to publish, distribute, and reprint

(Skipping for V1: Detailed style guides, structured heading requirements, blinded review formatting, cover letters, IRB approval documentation, etc.)

How to submit: Post to here in this ROAR UpTrust group.

Relational Tech Project. Just found out about this initiative and (without having had more than a skim so far) was reminded of my recently created UpTrust account, so this will be my first post. Hi to all who may see this!

https://relationaltechproject.org/

"We can build what we need

Many of us wish our neighborhoods were more connected. We want to live in neighborhoods where we learn from the creativity, care, and skills of our neighbors — and share our gifts too.

We've been told a perfect app or platform would help us, but that hasn't panned out. The hard truth is that no one is coming to save us.

The good news: we can build what we need!"

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

On the plethora of Therapeutic modalities.

There's a genre of book that's the therapy modality book. They're all the same. They go

I was a therapist and what I was doing wasn't working, and then I discovered <specific technique the book is advocating> and then it cured me and all my clients and now things are great and we just need to teach everybody this technique.

So many therapy books are like this. Focussing, the IFS book, the EFT book, to name a few. The various ACT books. Waking the Tiger.

And the specific technique is different from book to book. Radically different. And even contradictory.

So what's going on here? Apart from probably there's some book somewhere about how to write a therapy book, or some ghostwriter that's cranking these out?

If we take these stories as more or less true, how do we make sense of these seeming contradictions?

This is not a rhetorical question! I'm going to give you my best guess below, but please take a moment to think of your answer, and ideally post it in the comments for everyone to see. I am very much interested in other answers here.

Ok, my best guess (at least, the guess that I find most interesting):

What works is having a therapist who believes they are helping. It's like the placebo effect. If the doctor handing you a sugar pill is like "Yeah, idk, people told me this is helpful. lmk what you think", my guess is, you're not going to get much placebo effect out of that pill (actually they've done research and you do still get some but not as much iirc).

So when the therapist is out of school, they're doing what they were told works, but for a certain kind of mind, that doesn't give them confidence. So then they have to go on a big heroes journey, and come back with some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in.

Now they're back, and they believe it works, and low and behold, it does!

It's like Dumbo's magic feather.

"some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in."

So why do they believe in the technique they chose? Because they love to do it. Because, when they're doing it, they feel most like themselves, and they feel most connected with the person they're working with. Or they feel most connected with what they consider important, about a mind, about a heart, about a life.

And maybe this gives it some extra sauce too. Maybe this love of themselves, this intrinsic interest, radiates out, and reminds their clients that they too can love themselves, love life, be enthusiastic, and intrinsically interested.

Or maybe that last part is just what I have come to believe works ;)

The Pathology of Ungrounded Development. One of the ways psychological development can become pathological is if the current primary level from which a person operates isn’t grounded in skillful integration of the previous level. Higher stages are not inherently healthier or more mature unless they remain tethered to the embodied, functional insights of prior stages. Without that grounding, what looks like development may actually be a kind of spiritual bypassing or compensatory fantasy.

I’m going to use Integral levels in this post, but I think it holds for all the frameworks I can think of.

The example that first motivated me to write is Amber meme. It’s easy to look at Boomers and Silent Generation people as narcissistic or emotionally blunted, but this often misreads what’s going on. Amber consciousness is about identification with social roles within stable traditions. The “self” as a modern person might understand it—a complex internal landscape of feelings, preferences, and identity—is there, but it’s just chatter or even a threat to the more important social order. One’s value comes from doing the actions required by their roles, not from being unique and authentic.

That works when the tradition itself is strong, coherent, and meaningful—when Amber is healthy—and when the individual is rooted in a resilient Red: capable of exerting will, taking responsibility, and protecting the integrity of their whole. But when those roots are absent—when tradition is hollowed out and Red is weak or disowned—Amber becomes an empty cosplay of morality, nakedly incoherent and pretentious. Its roles are unprincipled, disconnected from humane values, and its rigidity masks insecurity. In that state, Amber is nearly indistinguishable from pathological narcissism: a brittle persona that cannot tolerate dissent or complexity.

This pattern repeats at every level:

• Magenta (archaic-animistic) works when the magical worldview is rooted in somatic presence and awareness. Without that, it becomes free-floating paranoia, magical thinking, and manic overinterpretation of signs—a kind of disembodied superstition.
• Red (egocentric-power) is healthy when the will to power arises in a world thick with gods and spirits, where one’s force is in dialogue with other forces. Without that mythic context, Red devolves into nihilism, hedonism, and psychopathy—a raw assertion of dominance without mythic consequence or embeddedness.
• Amber (mythic-traditional) thrives when roles are taken on by a self that can still act and desire; when conformity serves a greater good. Without a strong central self, Amber becomes self-abnegating and repressive—an obedience to dead structures that no longer serve life.
• Orange (rational-achievement) flourishes when its analytic clarity and drive for progress are rooted in a felt understanding of shared purpose and moral interdependence. Absent that, it becomes a frenzied churn of technocratic problem-solving, manic ideation, and disconnection from the sacred—a kind of spiritually bankrupt meritocracy.
• Green (pluralistic-relativistic) is healthy when it’s guided by a principled meta-awareness: an outside view that honors many perspectives while staying grounded in coherence and care. Without that, Green devolves into performative egalitarianism, chronic indecision, and an allergy to clarity or hierarchy. It becomes allergic to value distinctions, collapsing into a world where all perspectives are equal, and therefore none are meaningfully actionable.
• Teal (integral-systemic) works when its systems thinking, self-authorship, and multi-perspectival awareness are grounded in the humility and compassion of Green, the drive and responsibility of Orange, and the stability of healthy Amber roles, driven by the clear animal self of Red, in dialogue with the Magenta, mysterious forces of the world. When grounded, Teal can hold paradox, lead adaptively, and design organizations and lives in alignment with inner and outer complexity. But ungrounded Teal collapses into smug aloofness, pseudo-strategic detachment, and abstraction addiction. It can become a refuge for ego inflation masquerading as "perspective-taking," where the person dissociates from emotional and interpersonal reality in favor of managing symbolic frameworks. Leadership turns into control disguised as wisdom, and complexity becomes a shield against vulnerability.
• Turquoise (holistic-global) works when the deep spiritual insight into the interconnectedness of all life is anchored in the personal shadow work, disciplined mind, and rooted body of the earlier stages. A healthy Turquoise brings spaciousness, equanimity, and a profound, loving orientation to life that flows through action. But ungrounded Turquoise becomes dissociative mysticism—bypassing pain and complexity with a thin glaze of cosmic oneness. It risks becoming passive, impotent, and spiritually elitist: asserting unity while refusing to get its hands dirty in the particular. In this form, it confuses transcendence with escape and radiates a kind of abstract compassion that never actually helps anyone.

---

And therefore, the real measure of development isn’t altitude—it’s integration.
The vertical climb through developmental levels is only as meaningful as the horizontal web of connection it maintains: to the body, to community, to the sacred, to the world of action and consequences. Each new altitude offers a wider view, but without grounded roots, that view becomes disorienting rather than illuminating.

And therefore, the work is not merely to “ascend,” but to metabolize—to turn insight into skill, to anchor perspective in practice, and to allow each level to remain alive within us as we move forward. The warrior does not disappear at Green. The ritualist does not vanish at Orange. They become elders within the internal council, not ghosts haunting the halls.
And therefore, pathology is not failure, but signal. The manic ideation of Orange, the allergic egalitarianism of Green, the abstraction addiction of Teal—these aren’t just flaws to be corrected, but symptoms pointing us to the abandoned children in the basement of our psyche. Red screaming to be acknowledged. Magenta whispering through dreams. Amber clinging to ritual because we never taught it to choose.

And therefore, healing is recursive. To move forward, we often have to circle back. To grow up, we must also grow down—into roots, into history, into shadow. Every higher order of complexity demands a deeper humility, a willingness to touch the soil of what came before and still lives within.

And therefore, the path of true development is compost, not ladder. Each stage decomposes into the next, fertilizing it. The higher cannot replace the lower—it must digest it, dance with it, honor it. Otherwise, what we call transcendence is just dissociation with better branding.

Hello! And a question on measuring the quality of a connection. Hi Uptrusters! Sara here, joining for the conversations (debates? connections? community?) and because I’ve been frothing to see the inside of this platform ever since Jordan told me about it 🤤.

Since I imagine the best way to say hello here is to start an interesting conversation, here’s something I’ve been noodling on lately.

Right now I’m doing a bunch of research on loneliness and social isolation (two different things, as it turns out!) to write an article on How to make friends for the publication Clearer Thinking, which i think does the best independent psychological research and tool development of anywhere I know. In case you want more context for this post, here is the draft of the first half of the article, posted on my Substack while I’m working on it. https://authenticrevolutionary.substack.com/p/how-to-make-friends-part-1-inner?r=34w9f

There are a few research questions that have come up for me as I do this, areas of study that I think could be more explored and would be exciting to look at if we ever have Ph.Ds or grant funding for our field. If this topic interests people lmk and I’ll post more of the questions.

Here’s one I’ve been thinking on. There are a number of studies that look at how social connectedness, whether strong or weak-tie, affects health and happiness.

However, the metrics they use to ASSESS social connectedness seem…maybe incomplete, to me? For instance, I was reading a study this week on how the quality of conversations affects happiness and a sense of connection (study available here, if you want to read the results: https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2019-62902-001.pdf)

The metrics they used to assess quality of connection were:
- Self-disclosure
- Depth of conversation (rated from superficial to substantive)
- Liking of the other person
- Prior knowledge of the other person

So here’s my question. What other metrics, if any, do you think would be pertinent to assessing the quality of a connection?

Hello! And a question on measuring the quality of a connection. Hi Uptrusters! Sara here, joining for the conversations (debates? connections? community?) and because I’ve been frothing to see the inside of this platform ever since Jordan told me about it 🤤.

Since I imagine the best way to say hello here is to start an interesting conversation, here’s something I’ve been noodling on lately.

Right now I’m doing a bunch of research on loneliness and social isolation (two different things, as it turns out!) to write an article on How to make friends for the publication Clearer Thinking, which i think does the best independent psychological research and tool development of anywhere I know. In case you want more context for this post, here is the draft of the first half of the article, posted on my Substack while I’m working on it. https://authenticrevolutionary.substack.com/p/how-to-make-friends-part-1-inner?r=34w9f

There are a few research questions that have come up for me as I do this, areas of study that I think could be more explored and would be exciting to look at if we ever have Ph.Ds or grant funding for our field. If this topic interests people lmk and I’ll post more of the questions.

Here’s one I’ve been thinking on. There are a number of studies that look at how social connectedness, whether strong or weak-tie, affects health and happiness.

However, the metrics they use to ASSESS social connectedness seem…maybe incomplete, to me? For instance, I was reading a study this week on how the quality of conversations affects happiness and a sense of connection (study available here, if you want to read the results: https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2019-62902-001.pdf)

The metrics they used to assess quality of connection were:
- Self-disclosure
- Depth of conversation (rated from superficial to substantive)
- Liking of the other person
- Prior knowledge of the other person

So here’s my question. What other metrics, if any, do you think would be pertinent to assessing the quality of a connection?

Attempted Trump Assasination- Was he actually hit by a bullet? (meta commentary: I imagine the future of uptrust will host more conversations of this nature… so let’s see how we navigate it)

On Saturday, former president Donald Trump was the target of an attempted assassination.

Two things I want to talk about–

1. Was Trump actually hit by a bullet? I’m skeptical that a bullet grazed his ear, and think it’s more likely that a piece of shrapnel clipped him. I’m not intending to minimize the fact that someone definitely tried to kill him, but rather I am irritated by his spinning and inflation of the story if there is a truer thing to be said about what happened.

2. The secret service really fucked up. How on earth do they miss a lone sniper on a roof that many of the bystanders identified before them? I don’t think there is a conspiracy theory here, but do believe someone should probably be fired for their oversight.

I’d like to hear others’ opinions on this + where your credibility comes from. Name your news source or experience that leads you to believe what you’re sharing.

Race and IQ. I recently got dinner at a hole-in-the-wall asian spot with a geneticist named Razib Khan. Over noodles, and with a concerned glance over his shoulder, he admitted that the science is clear: race is absolutely tied to IQ. Jews are the smartest. Pretty much everyone on the continent of Africa is at the bottom.

This fact alone is controversial, but we have to be able to talk about it, and here’s why:

I nodded, and asked: How many generations does this take to change?

Razib: As little as three generations. For example, the Egyptians used to be the smartest, but a century of inbreeding knocked them to the bottom. Incest drops IQ by 10 points in the first generation. After that the effect weakens.

This is huge. At first glance, the controversial statement seems like a slamdunk for racists the world over. But dig into the details, and you find out 3 generations is enough to change things—this means that race and IQ are not inherently linked as far as we know, they’re just linked in today’s world, because of today’s policies and systems.

Knowing this could actually help us target where we need to focus our interventions for the next three decades. Let’s get us all up!

Can we handle the truth? If UpTrust works the way it’s intended, it will make truth more accessible. But what percentage of the population currently has the capacity to face truth?

Perhaps alongside truth, the tech will make the skills for being with the truth more accessible too. And avoidance will come in for the assist when needed?

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.

Attraction is out of our control, Microbe overlords are controlling our actions. So, I watched this documentary on Netflix last night, which reignited my interest in the gut microbiome.

I’m connecting dots between what we’re learning about how the gut biome impacts mood and actions with the elusive nature of attraction.

During my Sunday Relateful Flow session, someone said, I’m learning that trying to understand someone gets in the way of just letting myself be attracted to them.

Research is showing that the gut biome can influence and even potentially create conditions like depression, autism, and obesity.

More research will show that the sense of attraction to others is also influenced by the biome. We have scant data on this now- one study shows that female mice tended to be more attractive mates when they had more diverse gut flora.

So, why does this matter? It makes me think about sitting at the dinner table the other night. Some friends were over with their young child, and he was incessantly eating salt. The kid’s dad said oh hm he must need salt, trusting his natural intelligence.

My hypothesis is that research will show that we’re attracted to people with the gut bacteria we need more for greater diversity, so our microbes drive us to exchange bodily fluids with them.😏

On the other hand, I guess it’s possible that if you’re overrun with less-than-ideal microbes or less gut biodiversity, then maybe those microbes want to stay in charge, and they’ll lead you to swap fluids with someone whose biome maintains the status quo.

Here’s what I think everyone should do with this information:
1. Eat more fiber and fermented foods. Do this for many months.
2. Once you’ve worked on ensuring you have a diverse microbiome, trust your attraction. If you’re monog, sorry- you need to take up polyamory. Give it a go. For your health. 😜

(chatgpt) the Intersection of Spiritual Practice and Ken Wilber's Integral Theory. In our journey through life, many of us seek deeper meaning and a more comprehensive understanding of the world around us. For those engaged in spiritual practice, the quest often involves not only personal growth but also a desire to comprehend the broader tapestry of existence. This is where Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory provides a transformative framework, uniting spirituality with a holistic vision of human development.

Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory: An Overview

Ken Wilber, a pioneering philosopher and thinker, developed Integral Theory as a comprehensive approach to understanding reality. This theory integrates insights from a wide range of disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, science, and spirituality. At its core, Integral Theory is built on the AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) model, which examines reality through four quadrants:

Interior-Individual (Intentional): Our inner experiences, thoughts, and feelings.
Exterior-Individual (Behavioral): Our physical actions and behaviors.
Interior-Collective (Cultural): Shared values, beliefs, and worldviews.
Exterior-Collective (Social): Systems, institutions, and social structures.
By considering these dimensions, Integral Theory offers a balanced and inclusive perspective, acknowledging that every aspect of reality holds significance.

The Intersection with Spiritual Practice

Spiritual practice often focuses on personal transformation and connecting with a higher state of consciousness. Integral Theory enriches this journey by providing a structured map to navigate the complexities of spiritual growth. Here’s how the intersection unfolds:

Holistic Development: Integral Theory encourages the development of multiple aspects of the self. Spiritual practitioners often emphasize inner growth (Interior-Individual), but Integral Theory reminds us to also pay attention to our behaviors (Exterior-Individual), cultural context (Interior-Collective), and societal systems (Exterior-Collective). This holistic approach ensures that spiritual growth is not isolated but integrated into all aspects of life.

Stages of Consciousness: Wilber’s theory outlines various stages of consciousness development, from egocentric and ethnocentric to worldcentric and beyond. Spiritual practices can help individuals progress through these stages, fostering a deeper and more expansive awareness. Understanding these stages provides a roadmap for practitioners, highlighting the potential for continuous growth and evolution.

Inclusivity and Diversity: Integral Theory advocates for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and practices. In the spiritual realm, this means recognizing the value of different traditions and methods, from meditation and prayer to service and mindfulness. By embracing a pluralistic approach, practitioners can enrich their spiritual journeys with a variety of tools and insights.

Balancing States and Stages: Spiritual experiences often involve profound states of consciousness, such as those achieved through meditation, prayer, or mystical experiences. Integral Theory distinguishes between these temporary states and the more permanent stages of development. This distinction helps practitioners integrate peak experiences into their everyday lives, promoting sustained growth rather than fleeting moments of enlightenment.

Community and Transformation: Spiritual growth is often seen as an individual journey, but Integral Theory emphasizes the importance of collective evolution. By engaging with communities that share similar values and goals, practitioners can create supportive environments that foster both personal and communal transformation.

In Conclusion

The intersection of spiritual practice and Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory offers a rich, multifaceted path for those seeking deeper meaning and holistic development. By embracing this integrative approach, we can cultivate a balanced, inclusive, and transformative spiritual journey that touches all dimensions of our existence. Whether you are a seasoned practitioner or just beginning your spiritual quest, Integral Theory provides valuable insights and guidance to illuminate the way. Let’s explore, grow, and evolve together, integrating the wisdom of the ages with the holistic vision of the integral framework.

(chatgpt) the Intersection of Spiritual Practice and Ken Wilber's Integral Theory. In our journey through life, many of us seek deeper meaning and a more comprehensive understanding of the world around us. For those engaged in spiritual practice, the quest often involves not only personal growth but also a desire to comprehend the broader tapestry of existence. This is where Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory provides a transformative framework, uniting spirituality with a holistic vision of human development.

Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory: An Overview

Ken Wilber, a pioneering philosopher and thinker, developed Integral Theory as a comprehensive approach to understanding reality. This theory integrates insights from a wide range of disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, science, and spirituality. At its core, Integral Theory is built on the AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) model, which examines reality through four quadrants:

Interior-Individual (Intentional): Our inner experiences, thoughts, and feelings.
Exterior-Individual (Behavioral): Our physical actions and behaviors.
Interior-Collective (Cultural): Shared values, beliefs, and worldviews.
Exterior-Collective (Social): Systems, institutions, and social structures.
By considering these dimensions, Integral Theory offers a balanced and inclusive perspective, acknowledging that every aspect of reality holds significance.

The Intersection with Spiritual Practice

Spiritual practice often focuses on personal transformation and connecting with a higher state of consciousness. Integral Theory enriches this journey by providing a structured map to navigate the complexities of spiritual growth. Here’s how the intersection unfolds:

Holistic Development: Integral Theory encourages the development of multiple aspects of the self. Spiritual practitioners often emphasize inner growth (Interior-Individual), but Integral Theory reminds us to also pay attention to our behaviors (Exterior-Individual), cultural context (Interior-Collective), and societal systems (Exterior-Collective). This holistic approach ensures that spiritual growth is not isolated but integrated into all aspects of life.

Stages of Consciousness: Wilber’s theory outlines various stages of consciousness development, from egocentric and ethnocentric to worldcentric and beyond. Spiritual practices can help individuals progress through these stages, fostering a deeper and more expansive awareness. Understanding these stages provides a roadmap for practitioners, highlighting the potential for continuous growth and evolution.

Inclusivity and Diversity: Integral Theory advocates for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and practices. In the spiritual realm, this means recognizing the value of different traditions and methods, from meditation and prayer to service and mindfulness. By embracing a pluralistic approach, practitioners can enrich their spiritual journeys with a variety of tools and insights.

Balancing States and Stages: Spiritual experiences often involve profound states of consciousness, such as those achieved through meditation, prayer, or mystical experiences. Integral Theory distinguishes between these temporary states and the more permanent stages of development. This distinction helps practitioners integrate peak experiences into their everyday lives, promoting sustained growth rather than fleeting moments of enlightenment.

Community and Transformation: Spiritual growth is often seen as an individual journey, but Integral Theory emphasizes the importance of collective evolution. By engaging with communities that share similar values and goals, practitioners can create supportive environments that foster both personal and communal transformation.

In Conclusion

The intersection of spiritual practice and Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory offers a rich, multifaceted path for those seeking deeper meaning and holistic development. By embracing this integrative approach, we can cultivate a balanced, inclusive, and transformative spiritual journey that touches all dimensions of our existence. Whether you are a seasoned practitioner or just beginning your spiritual quest, Integral Theory provides valuable insights and guidance to illuminate the way. Let’s explore, grow, and evolve together, integrating the wisdom of the ages with the holistic vision of the integral framework.