What does integral look like?

(Cross-post from the Integral pod on Gaia)

This is a thought that's been cooking for a while: how will integral naturally emerge, and will it look like the way Wilber has described it?

I might be wrong, but from reading wilber, I get the impression one of the main characteristics of integral is vertical thinking, developmental awareness. deeper levels of understanding. I do think this is an important characteristic, but what people seem to be witnessing is a deeper, complex way of thinking, yet seen as a horizontal complexity. It's still development, but not quite “linear” as it used to be.

Or in other words, the heirarchy, the classical “beaurocratic” levels are breaking down for a networking society.

So we're seeing the rise of the “network” instead of the “institution.” there are alot of thinkers along these lines, and to me this seems like where civilization is headed. i think this fits perfectly into integral, without needing to structure in levels just yet. it can fit into the maps, for sure, but common understanding of 'vertical' development is something that doesn't need to happen first. instead, we are re-thinking and seeing the relationship and organization in a totally new, complex structure.

We're seeing a breakdown of classical institutions, the information age has created collaborative efforts, open source organizations— and the internet is the best place to see new structures of society emerging.

So, what does integral look like, without the language, without the theory? or in other words, what does it look like without the map?

Networks, organic patterns, collaborations and decentralized organization.

I think Wilber, and many other integral theorists have correctly criticized “flatland,” and postmodernism for simply accepting the break down of heirarchy, centralized ways of thinking as the end-all, be-all. The story doesn't stop there. But instead of immediately creating vertical maps, it seems that it is naturally happening by first seeing organic patterns in the chaos. people are structuring naturally, organizing and networking. this way, underlying themes begin to be seen… and yes, maybe eventually we will have a deeper vertical awareness. for the moment, the depth comes from understanding the space between perspectives, but we're in the midst of creating the map. relationship and flex-flow will become prominent– and this is resonant with spiral dynamics, the 2nd tier “integral” value memes. If Wilber, and many of the integral theorists are correct, we will see maps arise naturally, and the “integral” attitude arising naturally in many creative ways.

If you want to see where it's headed, I think some great thinkers who are not associated with the integral theorists, per say, are clay shirky, who has an excellent ted talk here: Institution vs Collaboration

Another thinker is Manuel Castells– a sociologist who is strongly for moving beyond postmodernism, and wrote a book called “The Rise of the Network Society,” as well as “1000 Years of Non-Linear History.”

Do you know of any others? i'm not sure this is all coherent, but what i'm trying to get at is that we're seeing “integral” pop up organically, and sometimes the language of these theories can get in the way from seeing the seeds grow right under our feet.

Philosophy, Dichotomy and Going Beyond Dualism

A vs B and why that model’s time has passed.

I started my classes again today. The first up was “Philosophy of Mind.” The professor seems to be very into this topic, and for starters made it very intimidating. It’s not that the material is un-readable, but his harsh grading system (A/F) is a little disconcerting. Nevertheless. What is the philosophy of mind? From what I heard today, it’s the study of the mind/body “problem.” That is, how does consciousness arise in the body? Does it? Do we have free will, or if everything is physical, then is choice an illusion? There are many other questions that come up with this topic. We are going to be focusing on the “mind-body” split and how many philosophers chose (no pun intended) to answer it. Some go for the determinist view, the physicalist argument (No free will). Others go for the opposite view: All is mind. Then there are others who attemp to create a middle way, or balance between the perspectives. I personally agree with the third way, but the philosophy of integral has definitely had an influence in me in this respect.

While in class, I couldn’t help but remember the name of a chapter in Grace and Grit by Ken Wilber, “Mind-Body Drop!” A buddhist teacher used this as a koan, or a pointing out instruction for his students. The third topic I’d like to see in this class (though it wasn’t in the syllabus), would be- is there anything more? When mind-body drops, what is left? Or, as the Zen masters might say, what is your original face, before your parents were born?

So this is what we’re focusing on: The mind/body problem. I’d like to think of us as mind-bodies. We are both biological and mental. Being a fan of quantum physics and all related research, I’m somewhat aware that we are learning more about the mind potentially (pun not intended, again) being quantum-related. That is, some aspects of our consciousness can be explained through quantum science. I need to look up the article, but I recently read that protons move roughly around or beyond the speed of light. This would have profound insights into consciousness and how we experience it. 

But, back to the class, “Philosophy of Mind.” I’m going to try not to raise too many questions based on things I’ve read outside of the class. For instance, we know with quantum science that the universe is certainly not deterministic. In fact, it’s all about potential and probability collapsing into our experience. The mind is as much a creator of reality as it is a subject to it. That is, we are biological indeed, and all laws of the universe apply to us, but the brain helps create the experience of reality. It’s our way of interacting with the world, and it has gradually adapted and complicated over the eons. 

I wasn’t aware of this, but the term “science” was hardly used before the scientific revolution. Before then, it was called “natural philosophy.” Philosophy was a part of science, and vice versa. So, I see that as an example of yin-yang relationship that I’d like to see in mind-body theories. 

From what I know, the problem with the ‘physicalists’ or extreme ‘reduction’ is that it cannot yet account for the very basic experience of consciousness. It just can’t explain why on earth we’d have this awareness. 

So, to express my final thoughts on this subject (for now, of course), seeing modern philosophy as a series of “dichotomies” has inherently limited it to dualism, when it has so much more potential. The “problem” of inner mind and outer world can be dispelled, I think, with a third view. Instead of “either/or” let’s look at how “both/and” is possible. Instead of night or day, we have night and day. Life and death are intrinsic, and so why not body-mind? These are all just words, but they point to something more. I think this could be seen as an evolution from traditional philosophy (of dichotomies) to eteology, or the study from beingness. It could be said, the phrase, “I think, I am,” is not digging deep enough. Instead, “I am, I think, I feel, I see,” could help us gain more insight. The space between the words gain importance in an “integral” attitude. The connectivity, the complimenting of once opposing views are deeply valued. Seeing the flex-flow evolution of memes, consciousness and perspective- this is the future of so many things, including philosophy. 

And so, maybe I’ll mention these ideas in class, but either way, I hope to see them in our lives. The tool of stepping back from dualistic thinking does not leave us with idiocy, but the profound silence of transcendent and transrational consciousness.

Letter to a Post-Modernist

The dissolution of the meta-narrative allows us to see the underlying vast network of "micro-narratives," as if unearthing a simplistic skin to observe a networking root of vines, earth, and complex structures. Like lifting a rock to see the vast life beneath, we see what we have been missing from our understanding. The importance of each leaf, twig, tunnel and worm become vastly more interesting than the concealing rock above, but take note; it is important not to forget how these vast web of life is itself a greater picture. Note the worm that builds the tunnels, that the beetles crawl through, observe the spider, spinning webs around roots, the centipedes and millipedes- all these things are interwoven, no matter what their individual intricacy.

See the wonder of this microcosm, but do not hesitate to sink deeper into the earth, to see the greater flowing networks that bind life and, dare I say, a new grand-narrative, a web of holistic patterns emerges- one that is always flowing and growing, emerging and manifesting in vibrant patterns like life itself. Your awe, wonder and adventure within each microcosm may be valued to greater and greater degrees, but do not forget that all that is, no matter how small, is in relation to other. There are revelations in recognizing the spider web, and not getting caught one one thread or another.

Swimmies in the Deep End

I'd like to point out that this was greatly inspired by a friend of mine, for now we will call Owl. I was reading her blog and felt a spark of blogging inspiration. Thanks Owl!

A few blogs back I was inspired to critique and explore my major, sociology. I wrote a few questions that I thought were necessary, but forgotten in the classroom. I have one more:

Can our understanding deepen?

That is, can we understand ourselves, collectively and individually, at deeper and more inclusive levels?

The term is often called holistic. It's how one thing builds up on another, increasing depth, complexity and development in response to environment and change. There's a little bit of physical proof, sitting inside your skull right now. It's your reptilian brain stem. The very, very early state of the brain which handles our bare instincts. Wonderful thing. Causes problems sometimes, but necessary nonetheless. And it was necessary before we could develop the mammalian brain. It's not that the mammalian brain was predetermined, or pre-destined by some archaic, dogmatic faith or oppressive scientific law. Nope! It was, for the most part, spontaneous, intelligent reaction to adversity. So many variables go into evolution that I won't even try to explain them all, or even pretend I know half of them. What I'm getting at here, though, is that evolution exists. It naturally builds on previous states to emerge a new trait. The previous aspect is right there, doing what it always has. The reptilian brain is not "unequal" from the mammalian, for the two could not exist without each other.

So holistic things are inter-dependent as well. We have a world that is a wonderfully complex, hidden dynamic. Like an organism, there are parts, whole-parts making up other whole-parts. Is it any wonder, then, or even truly arguable, that our consciousness, our own mind does not reflect this harmonic universe? Is it any wonder that new stages of awareness, built on previous ones, can pop up in response to our own development and potential growth?

When a child is not raised in contact with other human beings, parts of his or her brain are actualy undeveloped. Because of this, you can make an argument that any such "evolved consciousness," is entirely dependent on your upbringing. That's only partially true. Yes, we are social beings. We need interaction to develop. But that interaction, that level of understanding that is imparted onto the next generation, has shifted and grown observably. You can witness the emergence of worldcentric thinking, pluralism and humanities as more dominant thought processes, as technology, globalization and worldviews emerge and interact.

So, what is more simplistic here? Can evolution, seen so colorfully enriched in our modern perspective, really be labeled "linear?" Or is it perhaps the view that, even in the deep end, we must wear swimmies that is truly the simple one? If people are diving in, there's no need to stop them. Just accept them as you accept the multiplicity of perspectives. Embrace depth with inclusiveness. That is the meaning of integral.

It's Official!

This is it folks! Fordham University has officially accepted KOSMOS as a club! We are now funded by the school to pay for our publishing. Awesome! Now calls for the heavy task of advertising. Fliers, fliers fliers, I say. We already have a few up in the main building. More to come. Any ideas for design? Any concepts for the journal? For anyone who just started reading or has been reading this blog, suggestions are welcome. Our first issue comes out in March. Our mission? Generally speaking, to bring each of the academic departments together under one magazine. Science, religion, philosophy, art, journalism, creative writing - whatever genre, whatever department, you are welcome here. We will also be exploring the edges of academia, and beyond. We are offering students a chance to learn about alternative knowledge, integral philosophy, and a creative and intellectual outlet. For those who are particularly spiritually oriented, we offer a channel for their voice. Come one, come all, you are already a part of the KOSMOS. As a bonus, we are designing the magazine itself after integral models. We're even having a Zen event this spring! Look forward to hearing more updates... 

Along the old Temple Path

I was reading an interesting website, Michael Teachings. It is generally considered a new-age revelation, where a being from a higher spiritual plain has 'channeled' its wisdom to us folks in the jungle. I know there is alot of criticism with New Age teachings, and I'm not sure if channeling is what they often describe it as, but I'm willing to be open to the possibility. While reading this site, I kept a healthy skepticism, but found some good teachings that truly resonated with Integral theory. For instance, the life of the soul, according to Michael, goes through levels. Five levels to be exact. In the beginning, "baby" souls are open to psychic powers, do not differentiate themselves much from their environment, and often are passive and cautious. It is even mentioned that "baby" souls resemble "old" souls in this way, but they are two very different stages of development. According to Michael, one must go through all the stages of development to get to the "old soul" stage, even though "baby" and "old" stages resemble each other. This struck me as a clear example of understanding the pre-trans fallacy. In this sense, the general philosophy of Michael is vertical. He also teaches a variety of 'horizontal' teachings. I find it interesting to note that the stages of the soul resemble spiral dynamics.

The middle stages are more violent, defensive, meme-war like and karma-collecting. "Young" souls thrive in "I do what I want" environments, and "Adult" souls thrive in mythical, rule-role environment. Interestingly, it seems that the "Mature" soul is one who is tied between worlds, who is beginning to think in new perspectives, to shake loose the bondage of mythic structure and embrace pioneering fields. They are the troubled geniuses, Michael says, who are disillusioned and attempt to make sense of the 'unknown' without just translating it into meme-wars. Sounds almost like 2nd tier structures in spiral dynamics, no? The beginnings of integral, the existential self, etc. To sum it up, 'Mature' souls are finally clearing out their karma, and letting go of the burdens accumulated from past lives. They are also beginning to be the 'self reflexive' type, understanding their own psychological issues.

At last, the "Old Soul," is one who has at last dropped a majority of the karmic bondage and emotional baggage. The old soul is described as one who resembles a physiological old person. They tend not to be noticed much, as their development is extending beyond this 'plain,' or in integralist language, resonating with transpersonal states. Because of this, they seem to resonate less and less with those who are still grounded in the more earthly, physical domain, and mental domains. That is, personal and pre personal. Because of this they are, in the most direct sense, in the spirit of Taoism, one who is simply content to just be, and let things occur naturally. There is less 'doing' and more 'being,' but an acceptance and understanding of both. The previous 'stages' may not like this, or even pay attention to 'Old' souls because they seem to embody the spirit of action through non-action.

So, what 'stage' do you see yourself in? They can of course be intermingled, intertwined, or transitory. Personally, I see myself as dancing between the Mature and the Old soul. Often I find myself attempting projects, trying to 'connect' or 'resonate' if you will with many communities. The Integral community, Zaadz, Gaia, Tribe.net, as some examples. Yet, it seems almost natural for me and my blogs to go under the radar, hardly noticed. I think after reading Michael's teachings on Old Souls, a part of me has come to accept that aspect as natural and possibly even good. A constant struggle for me, it seems, was getting involved and noticed in these communities. I always seemed to disappear between the cracks. Not to complain, but it definitely was a downer for me. Maybe if I accept the quiet that's around me, I can learn a thing or two from the silence and find a better way to resonate with others. 

So, in that sense, I'll walk the old temple path, and not try to set up shop in market yet. Who knows who or what I will stumble upon. The stones are ancient here, and the temple falls gently into the forest's embrace. I have no dazzling community, nor podium to speak to many and with many, but that's alright. Every breath and leaf, flower and tree, being and non-being that is both seen and unseen, has a lesson to teach.

"This Is It," Alan Watts on Integral

"Psychologists with a slant to materialism therefore argue that mysticism is nothing more but sublimate sexuality and frustrated fleshliness, whereas the spiritists maintain that the love-imagery is nothing but allegory and symbolism never to be taken in its gross and animal sense. But is it not possible that both parties are right and wrong, and that the love of nature and the love of spirit are paths upon a circle which meet at their extremes? Perhaps the meeting is discovered only by those who follow both at once. Such a course seems impossible and inconsistent only if it can be held that love is a matter between alternatives, if, in other words, love is an exclusive attitude of mind which cleaves to on object and rejects all others. If so, it must be quite other than what is said to be God's own love, 'who maketh his sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and sendeth his rain upon the just and the unjust.' Love is surely a disposition of the heart which radiates on all sides like light."

-

This is It, Alan Watts pg 119

Yeah! That's what I've been thinking. It's an excellent metaphor for what it means to be 'integral.'  We simply observe any side, extreme, point of view in our awareness without demonizing it or rejecting it out right. It's accepted for what it is, just like when light shines, it does not shy away from the shadows, nor build fences to defend itself against the dark places. It simply resonates. We can do our best to reflect this ability in our lives. Applying this practically, Alan Watts was describing mysticism and the opposing views it had with his contemporaries. It still holds true today, however, when we look at magazines like Psychology Today, which typically reduce all spiritual and 'inner' experience to outer, empirical phenomenon. In that sense, and as Watts says, both sides are right and wrong. 

Indigo Children!

So, let's take a ride in the New Age section - This way please! Step here, if you will. Strap in and get ready. We're going to tour the Indigo Section - full of psychics, transformations and new "age" consciousness. We're also going to describe what the greatest flaws, not of the children, but of the advocates perpetuated.

What is an indigo child? There is a general definition: The latest and greatest generation, starting somewhere in the late 1980's and onward. They are characteristically known for being "system breakers," allegedly having psychic ability and a deep spiritual awareness for such an early age.

Wendy Chapman is quoted here, saying

Indigo Children are the current generation being born today and most of those who are 8 years old or younger. They are different. They have very unique characteristics that set them apart from previous generations of children. The name itself indicates the Life Color they carry in their auras and is indicative of the Third Eye Chakra, which represents intuition and psychic ability. These are the children who are often rebellious to authority, nonconformist, extremely emotionally and sometimes physically sensitive or fragile, highly talented or academically gifted and often metaphysically gifted as well, usually intuitive, very often labeled ADD, either very empathic and compassionate OR very cold and callous, and are wise beyond their years. Does this sound like yourself or your child?

This definition, in my opinion, is setting up what Ken Wilber has described as a "Pre-Trans Fallacy." Basically, what is happening here is 1) the acknowledgment of true transpersonal individuals with developed spiritual intelligence, 2) the affirmation of a shift of consciousness by the later generations and 3) society mislabeling this shift for disorder (ADD, ADHD, etc).

We can understand why society would label it a disorder - any epoch does not wish to see its own end, and those within its structures will fight to defend it, because it makes the most sense to them. That's fine.

For many of us who believe in reincarnation and "old souls," it makes sense that an individual who being born again would be traveling up through the developmental process quicker. That's fine. The psychic-subtle realm of development has alot of the characteristics of "indigo" children. But this is where the pre-trans fallacy comes in to play in two parts. The first? If you have authentically developed spiritual individuals - they still have to grow like everyone else. Meaning, you won't necessarily see a child dictating the law of karma to you. We aren't born mystics, we blossom into them. This is a very old mistake that dates back even to Jung. We misinterpret the non-rational for the transational. To be spiritual, to have the capacity for wisdom, you must go through it and then beyond it. The body/mind/spirit must develop an ability to tap into the divine that is ever-present.


The second issue is still of the Pre/Trans fallacy. I am sure there are a number of individuals with authentic spiritual intelligence. On the surface level, however, the definition of an indigo child is rather loose and up for interpretation. People will and have been throwing the term around at the slightest hint of talent. Your child is a great painter? He must be an indigo! Your child told you to love everyone? Oh, that must be deep indigo wisdom! Again I am going to stress here: There are always exceptions, but I have a feeling that this, like most movements, have far rarer authentic spiritual prodigies than described. There's nothing wrong with this. We want our children to feel special, because they are special for us.

Another interesting point raised by John D. Spalding in his article, "Brood Indigo,"

The Indigo Children are supposed to save the world--just like their Boomer parents set out to do.

Could many boomer parents simply be projecting their own unfulfilled desires onto the next generation? Are they passing the torch of narcissism to their children? Unfortunately it seems highly likely that this is at least part of what is going on.

Aside from the Pre/Trans fallacy the Indigo movement is suffering from, there is also the huge load of metaphysics that come with it. Again, with any authentic spiritual experience, we mold and interpret it according to where we are from on the spiral of consciousness: What level? What line? What culture? How deep? How shallow? A number of reasons why and what the indigo children are have arisen, and I'm afraid they rely too heavily on the surfaces to ever penetrate much validity.

Entering the reasoning behind the indigo children, we find a mess of new-age metaphysics. There's nothing inherently wrong with them - crystals, light, energy, vibrations. But we have to ask: Are these taken literally? Are they authentic spiritual experiences? Is there anything more to it? Anything deeper? Is anyone trying to make a general framework we can more easily navigate with? Also, what are indigo children saying themselves? Are they regurgitating what their parents are telling them or... ?

Well, thankfully there's a little bit of light shined on this! Not by those who have profited and wrote about indigos from the outside (Which is fine, if you understand what you're talking about), but an indigo herself. Interestingly, and in a rather integral fashion, indigo Laurel Chaisson has written: "The Seven Stages of Awareness." In the spirit of other developmental hierarchies throughout history, note 7 is once again present.

Right off the bat, I'm feeling good about this,

People are their purest at birth - everything after that is downhill in most cases! All babies are born with a higher-vibrational aura… not all of them start out at the highest level though,

The stages go like this: Searching for Truth, Gathering Knowledge, Shifting, Awakening, Remembering, Becoming, Being. We already have a good start. The details of this hierarchy are similar to many traditional systems of development, even to Wilber's developmental models. They apply to everyone, but indigos in particular are noted. Anyone can be anywhere, and can go up and down depending on circumstances. Sounds dynamic enough. There is a bit of metaphysics in it, but there is a healthy balance of tried-and-tested, perennial concepts utilized to make it worthy to read.

So, diving deeper into her writing, I found this juicy bit that literally cripples the movement's leaders (People talking ABOUT indigos but not actually asking them or others for alternatives. . . and the profit just rakes in):

Don’t ask, “How do I know if I am indigo/crystal?” because that will get you nowhere. There are hundreds of characteristic-lists that apparently outline our thought patterns and physical features. Books, websites, and people are just filled to the brim with theories on what makes us tick! It’s ironic that they’ve never actually experienced what it is they have dedicated their lives to. How can someone possibly understand something without becoming it first? What psychologists, psychics, parents, and teachers see is our outside - what we allow you to see without you asking us to show you more. What we expected was that you would immediately request that we explain ourselves but for some reason this is not the case. Perhaps it is our age or (for indigos) our sometimes extreme bluntness, but the fact is that you don’t talk to us enough. Instead studies are done or parents are asked to tell our story… but you have to hear it from us because we have been analyzing ourselves ever since we first came here; it’s our job! So that’s what I’m doing.

Yes! That's what we need. So, she goes on to describe that even reading the former description is altering our perception and molding our reality. So, if it can do that so easily, what's so weird about being an indigo? She gives a few easy steps,

Step one: when you are faced with a situation - any situation at all - take the time to ask yourself, “If I were called to be indigo/crystal right now, how would I respond?”

Step Two: act accordingly.

Step Three: Repeat steps one and two.

Hey, you’re done! Now wasn’t that simple? I bet you’re surprised… most people place us so high on a pedestal that they think it’s no longer possible to reach us way up there. But we’ve been saying it all along… if you want to be like us then you’d better start acting like it!

This is at least a great start - acknowledging the existential self, how we are influenced by others, how we tend to idealize "Others," yet this "other" is closer than we think. The transpersonal stuff starts to kick in, and suddenly we start seeing into other's perspectives, and they start seeing through ours. The higher "stages" of awareness are deeper and ever present, but I think it's also important to add that we may not necessarily have the capacity to "witness" that suchness at birth- at least, not in the way the sage does. Yet the wisdom of emptying the mind is eternal. And on that note, here's a few silly videos about indigo children. I think I've wrote quite enough now. You can take off your seat belts, the ride is over!

P.S. Here are some amusing media treats on Indigos,

Wolves and Angels; An Integral Reflection

The following piece was inspired by a class I am taking at Fordham University. Our assignment for the semester is to critically analyze any modern social movement. And, without any exaggeration on my part, 2/3rds of the class are writing about civil rights, pluralism, and sensitivity. The remaining classmates, including myself, are writing about consciousness, suicide and evangelism. For those of you who are familiar with Integral lingo, I suppose this class would be gravitating heavily toward the "green" meme, or pluralism/sensitivity.

And that's fine.

Two weeks ago, we had to present our topics. Unfortunately, when students that dared utter terms like: development, levels, lines, integral, unified diversity, map of consciousness, hierarchy of meaning,

They were on me like white on rice.

I was instantly given looks, raised eyebrows, questions with a mildly condescending tone.

"How can this be applied on a practical level?" I was asked by someone, with nods of agreement from other classmates.

"What are they doing to help people?" Another suggested.

I can understand where they are coming from, for sure. Our school is relatively progressive, heavily focused on the arts, liberal sciences, sensitivity, cultural awareness, etc. Yet, when the mention of unified diversity hit the air, they were wary and skeptical. This was disconcerting to me, as I was hoping to gain a spark of interest from the class (Integral is a rare topic in the university). My ego was smushed.

So the irony here began to set in. They had no problem being intolerant to the evangelical movement, agreeing whole heartedly that it was oppressive and backwards, shaking their heads at the in-class film, Jesus Camp. Yet, when something that is authentically unified comes along, like the mention of integral theory, they attack it! Strange, no?

And without further delay (Sorry for the ramble folks), here it is:

Wolves and Angels; An Integral Reflection

And we had it all. Upstairs in the student hall at least a hundred fliers, with a dozen different things to do. The world was at our fingertips, right there in our classrooms, and it was in very bad shape they'd tell us, very bad shape.

You could travel to Africa with foreign aid projects, discuss gender and race with the sensitivity club, and taste fine exotic foods in MultiCulture club. And this was all very progressive, so they would tell us. I had begun to have my doubts.

We sit in classrooms and discuss the same theme: Oppressive, hungry, needing world. Woe to you and we, the more fortunate, should extend our efforts. Sensitivity. Awareness. Effort. Assistance. The students are rallied up, in a very subtle way, to help. Yet I noticed, as each took their turn discussing one strife or another, that there was a level of enjoyment in it! Yes, hidden there, in the words of liberty, sensitivity, multiculture, there was an escape. Dare I say, it? No, I needn't, shouldn't. The escape was simple: If we all could immerse ourselves in these ideas, this diversity, we would be safe, we could make a meaning out of our lives and wish the demons away. These students were not actively wishing anything but their own security. The ultimate narcissism, it seems for us here in school, is through ideals. And this, if I were to say it aloud, would have them at me like a pack of wolves, who had just forgotten they were supposed to be angels.