VA Tech Tragedy: Integral vs. New Age Perspectives

Thanks for posting this. The mother and child at the end of the clip summed it all up for me. Fill the world with love. Love others. Love youself.

I agree with you a hundred percent on this one JW. It seems so obvious to me that Pavlina’s perspective is confused, it’s just pointless for me to argue about it. The more interesting and important issue, as you pointed out, is that highly intelligent and sensitive people within the integral and Zaadz communities cannot agree on something so basic to what you would call a mature, 21st century spiritual outlook. It just boggles my mind, but what can we do aside from continued honest, compassionate dialogue?

Hi Julian,

I don't deny that claiming your thoughts created a VA massacre is an unhealthy thing to do.  What I am concerned about in these analyses is the absence of one very important perspective:  Steve's.  Without involving him in the debate, I can't really involve myself in it, either way, as far as defending or supporting him.  I think analyzing his blog, post-for-post is fine.  And, in that sense, over a long period of analysis, you can form an opinion on the “altitude” of his blog.  But, it still may not be an accurate analysis of him.  Taking one post and making a categorical assessment, is a simple mistake of over-generalization.  Reading ~C's blog on this matter, one may in fact come to a completely different conclusion than you have. 

I'm not saying either is right.  I'm saying include Steve in the debate.  That is my position.

~M

“but i think you are actually off-base here - steve has participated - by writing the blog posts we are referencing. he is also i am sure aware of the criticisms and free to respond at any time…..”

True enough.  But he hasn't.  He has said, though, that he writes for a varied group of people.  And you will admit that writing for people who enjoyed “The Secret” would be a move to include a rather large demographic, wouldn't you? 

“and as to the one post thing; dood! how many posts do you need that suggest the kind of things i listed above to make an assessment? come on :O)”

At least 25, in succession for a good beginning sample size.  I think analyzing 25 of his most recent posts would lend itself to a better assessment of his blog as a whole.  And, btw, I don't follow Steve's blog very closely, so I have no idea what his last 25 posts were about.  So, my challenge to you is to read each of his last 25 blog posts, in their entirety, and see if you still hold the same opinion.  I would be genuinely curious to see what you come up with.

Fuck!  I hate you!

Also, it may take me more than a day to do this.  Extremely busy with zPro right now…  But by the day after tomorrow, for sure ;)

you can start from this article:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/06/the-meaning-of-life-intro/

then move up to here:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/04/spiritual-depth-perception/

~C

I'm not being generous.  And you have to take into consideration “types” here, as well.  A type 9 on the enneagram, no matter what altitude, would not want to attack a movie that his already-known demographic appreciates.  He would, instead, find ways of deconstructing the unhealthy aspects of it, even if it sounds to be an endorsement.  This is what some on P'SAL's blog say he has done/does do.  I hypothesize that you may be being a little narrow in your focus.  :o)

I state my position here.

peace
pelle

what i find problematic about your approach, Julian, is your holier than thou tone. and now you're making this discussion like one camp versus another, e.g “comrade in arms”, jeesh. is that what this is to you? a battle? an intellectual war? oh i get it. you're just being sarcastic :)

like this one:

“Now I have  three questions for Pavlina:

1) When did you go off your meds?

2) What kind of drugs did you take instead while you were in Sedona?

3) Did a writer from The Onion hack your site and post this stuff?

It's almost too good of a parody. How do these guys get taken seriously?”

now that is the kind of tone that would get Pavlina into a constructive dialogue. right?

seriously, how would you engage a person if they start a conversation like that with you?

even that kind of tone and personal insults have no place in a political debate. let's all get a grip and practice what we preach about right intention, right speech, and right action.

my two cents.

~C

thanks for clarifying. but let me make this clear. Pavlina's position is not entirely my position. i prefer not to say too much about this incident. also check out my first ever comment about this on Hokai's blog. i started the thread to get more perspectives on this. and the more i read up on yours and other people's take, the more i add to my own.

another reason why i started the thread is to give I-I a dose of healthy criticism. it would've been a more constructive dialogue if they approached Pavlina first. like Paul mentioned, the IN video could've stand on it's own without dragging Pavlina into the mix. here's what i wrote on Pauls' blog:

“anyway, what i meant by the skillful means part was that it would've been better if the sequence of events went something like this: IN contacted Pavlina, talked to the dude and asked him to explain his seemingly reductionistic and not so compassionate post before he got criticized on IN. this way, IN/I-I's criticisms would have more perspectives taken into consideration.

i think, from the point of view of Pavlina, he got alienated more than a number of times already, starting from the Holons, to the KenWilber.com blog post, and now the IN video and audio discussions. if i were Pavlina, i would think twice before agreeing for an the interview too.”

as far as i'm concerned, we're treating Pavlina like an “IT” projecting our own inadequecies and anger based on a few of his blog posts. jeesh, as if that would make the shootings less tragic.

i took the time to contact Pavlina and ask him (respectfully and not in a combative way) questions that would shed light on his understanding and intentions of his support for the LoA and to give him some “air time” on this very very very small nook in cyberspace. he agreed. so i'm looking forward to his answers to get to know him more. imho, that's a lot better than arguing over and overanalyzing every word of his blog post.

in the meantime, you might find this thread on Pavlian's forum interesting. if you really want to debate him, you can sign up there too.

~C

P.S. i linked to the piece about buddhist moral precepts because it illustrates my point of view. i link to get my point across without using too much words. i talk in hyperlinks.

If Pavlina didn’t get riled up over 32 people shot dead, he’s certainly not going to give a rat’s behind about Julian’s “tone.” In fact, to be consistent, he would probably see Julian’s “holier than thou” tone as evidence that he – Pavlina that is – is feeling morally self-righteous deep down within himself. All Pavlina needs to do is some more inner work and Julian’s negative attitude will fade away like a bad dream.

Wait… That’s a complete load of wrong-headed nonsense.

–Bob (Just call me Dick)

Julian,

you may also find his link interesting. it's a link to all of Steve Pavlina's post on his discussion forum wherein he answers the questions and criticisms from his readers. check it out:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/search.php?searchid=188090

here's a quote from one of his posts:

“Subjective reality is simply an alternative lens for viewing reality. But it is not truth itself, and I do not consider it part of my identity any more than Christianity or atheism. Be sure to read the latest article on Spiritual Depth Perception for more on that, or listen to podcast #13.

FWIW your reaction is really about solipsism. I get that a lot because I define subjective reality a bit differently than most people would. When I write from a subjective point of view, my point of reference when I say “I” is consciousness itself, not one of its avatars who happens to be named Steve Pavlina. I'm not saying that Steve is God. I'm saying that consciousness is responsible for everything that occurs within it, and when I apply the lens of subjective reality, I identify with that consciousness. I probably need to do more to clarify that identity shift, but I did explain it in this post (see the answer to the first question):
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200…-reality-qa-3/
”
and while you're at it, maybe you want to explain to this guy too how mistaken he is with his interpretation of AQAL :)

~C

Julian,

Since I didn't get a response from over at Paul's place, I'll try here -

a.  I think what a lot of people “see”, in Steve Pavlina, is the execution on the promise of “intentional manifestion”, where inner changes, then are reflected in outer reality.   In terms of Steve executing in self-change, he does that well.

to what degree is that true?  to what degree does intentional manifestation WORK?  You don't need to have the answer to this question, RIGHT NOW,  of course, I'm just bringing it up as food for thought, and as an element of discussion.

b. There is, to a degree, a strawman discussion regarding your discussion of Steve Pavlina's version of Subjective Reality.  It is clearly NOT your parents (or my parents, really) version of New Age Subjective Reality - a couple of quotes from the same article -

In my opinion the subjective reality interpretation is more empowering than the objective one.  I’m not suggesting that one perspective is right and the other is wrong.  I am, however, suggesting that the subjective perspective is more likely to lead to positive action that produces real change, change that actually looks good from both perspectives.  Remember that for change to occur, it must be personal.  You must change.

I have no probem, personally, with the above sentiment - do you?

Also:

When viewed in the right light, the subjective and objective perspectives can be congruent.  You just have to understand that a subjective change always precedes an objective change.  It’s ineffective to attempt to force an external change without making the internal change.  For example, it would make little sense for me to attack violence in the world as long as I still have unresolved violence within me.  Fighting violence with violence only begets more violence.  However, the very act of addressing the internal violence is what manifests the external solution

I have only a small problems with the above statement.  As Thich Nhat Hanh says, “Peace is every step”. 

Now, do I have problems between the conflation of the narcissistic three-year old (I create the world! It's all MINE! ) and the deeper place where all is not separate?  Yes, of course, Stewie from Family Guy is not the arbiter of reality, although again, Pavlina doesn't seem to be saying this, exactly.  Remember the first thing he says on his site is “Self-Development is Hard Work”.  How narcisstic is that?

  Do I think there is a place to hold “the Other” responsible for crimes they commit?  Also, yes, of course.

But I believe Pavlina also has something regarding the “outrage meter”, aspect of things.  I said over on my blog, 10 times the violent deaths that occured in the VA Tech massacre, happened in Iraq, in one week.  

But the human consciousness does something funny, whereby far away tragedy is just that - far away.  While near tragedy, is larger in the awareness.

Lastly, again, what is your opinion of psychic phenomena?  Do you believe it exists, or not?

thanks for reading, all who made it through that…

Just spent some time following c4's link.  I'm backpedaling now, a bit, as Steve's pretty smug in is responses to people in his forum.  Like, “I'm totally cool with it all”, like, for reals!”

Made me step back a bit there…I now have to reduce my appreciation for Pavlina's stuff, to the mystery of how intentional manifestation works.  As the chaos people call it,  “casting spells”. 

At some point, someone will integrate the “rules” on that level of reality, into integral philosophy, without all the New Age crap and narcissistic magical thinking that usually comes along with it. 

But at this point, the integral crowd doesn't address the mechanics of that level of consciousness.  

If I were to muse, things to take into account -

a.  You think about a person, and - boom - they call.
b.  You need a solution to a problem, and out of the blue, a person you talk to gives you the perfect solution
c.  After doing the work to get a new job, you let go a bit, even though you didn't find the perfect job, and then the job shows up.
d.  You write down the list of the “perfect woman for you”, and within two weeks, meet that woman, who has the qualities you were looking for.  (did this myself, it worked.  Of course, there are OTHER qualities that I didn't think about, that of course caused some friction!)
e.  I mentioned this to you before, but the claim by Grant Morrison (cool guy by the way), who says he gets “results” from any spell he does, without fail, within 3 weeks.

At any rate, I'm not going to throw the evidence of these “synchronicities” out the window. I'm not. 

I'm also not going to throw out evolutionary theory, developmental theory, social theory, or confuse this “magical level” we are talking about, with the narcissistic “I create reality” crowd, or with actual realization of Oneness.

But, I will say this to you, again and again - the kernel of what is true in magic/new age/subjective reality - what I've detailed above - NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED by integral theory.

seriously, without even understanding integral jargon or new ageness, Pavlina's POV about the shootings seem completely insane to me. 

i don't even know if any of this mumbo jumbo ” i create reality” needs to be explained by integral theory at all. it doesn't make any sense even from a common sense pov.

so  i have no idea why people are mesmerized by LOA at all. it's really interestingly confusing to me.

i think LOA is lacking in any logic as in being completely blind to any natural laws of cause and effect. it completely twists and turns it inside out and upside down. i don't get it and probably never will.

Julian, it has been awhile! I see you're still up to your old tricks, eh? We've been down this road before…But I have to say I agree with much of what you say about Pavlina's perspective. I've barely scratched the surface of his blog but I can't say I'm all that enamoured with his self-help renderings.

regards,
An old “heruic” friend from the KWF ;-)

To ebuddha: I just lost an extremely profound reply to your posts that would've explained everything ;). But to recap as briefly as possible, very nice points–especially the last bit. Wilber's integral theory seems to overly emphasize “knowing” over “being,” with AQALists reducing (that is, explaining away) anything that does not fit into the Hallowed and Most Integral Model of All…takes one to know one!

It is also interesting to note that many of the New Age modalities that AQALists like to bash tend to be more enjoyed by women than by men. It is my opinion that Wilberian integralism is rather biased towards a more left-brained, cognitive, masculine orientation, whereby anything intuitive, imaginal, or creative is reduced to a lower level (e.g. magical), rather than recognizing that these aspects also develop as lines. It is yet another case of one (Wilber) conflating his own personal trajectory of development and personality type into a universal system (see, for example, Wilber's “core modules” that emphasize cognition, work, and striving, and don't touch upon creativity, play or devotion).

It would be easy to take what I believe is a mistaken view that anything post-rational must be rationally explainable. Transcending rationality does not mean extending rationality to all aspects of Being, nor that all aspects of Being must be rationally explainable or scientifically provable to have validity (take just about any New Age modality). We all make the mistake of confusing our own way of Knowing as representative of Being, yet in so doing reduce our experience of Being to a much rather sphere (our own Knowing, or ego).

Now certainly many of Steve Pavlina's assertions that Julian quotes are rather silly, even unethical. But as you say, ebuddha, this sort of “magical manifestation” works to some degree, in some way. It certainly seems that the happier I am, the more positive energy I “put out,” the more I receive in kind. We simply cannot reduce our experience to our intentions and, as Julian points out, there is a kind of cruelty to the New Age notion that we create our own reality, as if we are entirely responsible for everything that happens–or doesn't happen–in our lives.

“the new age distorts, oversimplifies and cimfuses some fairly profound truths and renders them infantile, inflated…”

You know I don't disagree right?  Having a space case New Age hippy mom, who hid from her own issues using that nonsense, believe me, I get it.

If you  believe serendipitious events occur, then we aren't too far off, I think. 

But again, bottom line.  DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE PSYCHIC?

Yes or no? 

Again, at this point in your understanding - this doesn't need to be your “final answer”, in a who wants to be a milionaire type of way.

But it would be great, if you would answer, without tap-dancing, again, even if just a supposition for you now.

Because once you admit that, and you admit that “serendipitous events occur”, then philosophically, you've opened doors that can't be closed in a hermetically sealed integral philosophy.

Also, I actually do think, once someone can incorporate that level of synchronistic truths, pscyhic phenomena, into the whole of integralism, this will draw people away from the New Age. 

Right now, for those who are attracted to the New Age, when you say “there is no evidence of the crazy beliefs that are prevalent in the New Age”, those who have some experience with the sychronous level - a history of “fortuitous meetings”, pscyhic phenomena, etc - will simply dismiss you, as you dismiss their experience.   The same way I dismiss those atheists who dismiss spiritual experience as “mere fantasy”.  The integral way would be to INCORPORATE those half-truths, however bastardized they are, validate the experiences themselves, and THEN explain that their interpretation is incorrect, although the experience is valid.

At least, that's what I think.

More Stevo, re: subjective reality -

Subjective reality is simply an alternative lens for viewing reality. But it is not truth itself, and I do not consider it part of my identity any more than Christianity or atheism. Be sure to read the latest article on Spiritual Depth Perception for more on that, or listen to podcast #13.

FWIW your reaction is really about solipsism. I get that a lot because I define subjective reality a bit differently than most people would. When I write from a subjective point of view, my point of reference when I say “I” is consciousness itself, not one of its avatars who happens to be named Steve Pavlina. I'm not saying that Steve is God. I'm saying that consciousness is responsible for everything that occurs within it, and when I apply the lens of subjective reality, I identify with that consciousness. I probably need to do more to clarify that identity shift, but I did explain it in this post (see the answer to the first question):

Aha!  see, I get to be right for a change - this isn't your (my) mother's subjective reality!

A bit slippery wording there, but not the strawman New Age Subjective Reality you righteously put down with FURIOUS anger!!  (I'm a fan of the Pulp Fiction).

On the other hand, there are other quotes you could pull out that show the opposite, of course.  But then we are talking past each other, and I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm calling it for the night…

Johnny Bardo,

I find nothing to disagree with, regarding that comment.  Clearly, you are a genteman of serene intelligence, refined taste, and subtle understanding.  Like myself, in case I didn't make that explicit.  (What?  narcissistic mutual self-admiration?  Be still, you buzzing inner voice!)

Ahem…

To sum up, yeah, I guess we are “more integral” than the other guys, aren't we?

:)

Hmm, maybe you are all punch-drunk by now and I can post something…. :)

From a Big Mind perspective, Steve appears stuck in the absolute, and Julian has whacked him with the stick. Now what are you all complaining about? I mean really. We might find personal enjoyment from showing up others faults, or we might find it from defending others, this is our normal relative way right? I like both, it feels good. Sometimes though we get stuck in that ‘reality’, and it’s the best news in the world to be shown. Don’t you think?

Steve goofed, end of story. Why he goofed, he identified with the absolute - where there is no cause and effect, pain and suffering, dualism, anything is possible. (No wonder mushrooms were so good!).

Steve, like all of us, has difficulty transcending and including the absolute and relative, and hopefully this dialog helps him see his attachment to the absolute, and how his words have cause and effect.

This dialog has certainly helped clarify my thoughts on the awful subject, and how we cannot get too caught up in our ideas of what life is. Life always teaches us something new. As Kagen points out, we are an evolving self.

In the meantime we can give people the Pepsi Challenge - Absolute or Relative?

Hello Julian and other Zaadsters!

I'll apologize in advance: I don't have time this morning to read through all the comments on this blog post. In the interest of going to one of the “sources” directly, though, I am entering your room, Julian, to link to one of the threads on which I've posted a comment that ties directly into this dialog. I appreciate your engagement in this; I do still feel that you're not really hearing what some of us are saying. Or shall I say, several of us do not feel that we are being heard. I encourage you to put on a different hat (communion-centered, perhaps, instead of agentic) in this context.

My recent post in the thread Colin mentions offers some criticism to Julian's blog post.

Hi, Julian. I've made my opinion quite clear early at my blog and later with more detail at the VA Tech / Pavlina thread discussion. So i will just make few brief remarks here for the record. Your post is excellent as far as it goes to clarify the perversity inherent in various strands of newage confusion. I don't find your sarcasm and/or outrage misplaced, and would probably go even further on some points if I wasn't so shy. But then, this is not an appropriate forum for such com/passionate disclosures, if you know what I mean. Thank you for another raising of standards in the ways we go about establishing an integrally informed discourse, that is also not afraid of being misunderstood. Keep it going.

Godspeed,

Hokai

“respond to the actual points at hand with a counter analysis of pavlinas actual words in the posts that are being critiqued - i am not interested in much else here…..”

Ah, but that's the thing - I've provided quotes, and you haven't touched the quotes I've provided, but have simply reiterated your position on OTHER quotes!  Which, as I've said, I agree with, in the main, with some exceptions. 

I'm not upset myself, just engaging in discussion.  Dramatic outrage over what Steve Pavlina says, , rather say, what certain gurus ACTUALLY DO, in my own opinion, is misplaced.    I do see that this is a chosen metier for you, so I do understand why you keep engaging in it.

But at any rate - outside of making choices in what one is outraged about - as funny and great as your takedown, and Stu' video is  (I was laughing heartily through most of Stu's last Stuart Davis show, which starts out with one of the three versions of Stu thinking anoher version pink), to a degree, it's a strawman view of Pavlina's subjective reality. 

Pavlina acknowledges up front, he is dealing with ONE narrow specrum - self development.  Manifestation.  Self-improvement.

This means, by design, he ISN'T engaging in history, developmental theory, the way of the world, EXCEPT for, how it impinges upon personal growth.

And again, by the way, I have a lot of the same issues, as I'm detailing, regarding his posts on self-discipline, one of the cornerstones of personal development.    He is already gearing his posts about, and to, highly functional people.  And not dealing with heavy-duty pscyhological scarring, or deep stuckness in a person (which I, like you, will continue to criticize, in where he is coming from.)   See you're not WRONG, only PARTIAL!  :)

And, re: the psychic thing, yeah, we will disagree on that.  I could no more agree, than if you told me the color red doesn't exist, due to my experiences.   I would caution you not to objectify myself, or others who think the way I do, as  “wishful thinking combined with selective memory…”, but consider that, perhaps, there is a there there.

I would recommend reading the Future of the Body, maybe it will help you out by loosening some of your certainties in this.

Nice chattin!

Wow.

You
simply
can't
hear.

I agreed in the VA Tech / Pavlina thread, as I did in my post, that Pavlina has some fundamental flaws in his understanding based on some key points in his blog. Perhaps you didn't HEAR that.

Funny, Julian, I don't know you at all, except for what I've read in a couple of threads regarding Pavlina in which I see an overly antagonistic style, and what I've heard directly from others about your abrasive style. Now I hear that even more loud and clear. Thank you for making your point clear.

My point is not about whether you are displaying correct knowledge. My point is that, in this context only, you are lacking wisdom.

And that is all I'll say. Given the likely range of counterpoints from you or complete lack thereof, you shant expect to see me here again. Good day to you.

A couple of clarity points - “ebuddha - i was not directing my most recent comments to you.”

That is simply not accurate. This had to be in response to me, in fact, your comment is specifically to my psychic question here - “i have no reason to believe in psychic abilities and i think people mostly unconsciously trick themselves into the vast majority of synchronicities and psychic evidences. it’s a kind of wishful thinking combined with selective memory”.  That is a direct response, in the same sentence, to my question.

So yes, this comment was directed, specifically around my psychic belief question.

“and we are not strawman-ing pavlina's “subjective reality” we are out and out critiquing it for the shallow PTF BS that it is…. there is nothing fallacious about the position we are attributing to him based on his explicit statements.”

Well, that's a nice assertion, but the definition is:  ”straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”

I will again say, you are “out and out critiquing” a version of subjective reality that Pavlina doesn't exactly ascribe to.  His version of subjective reality is not my mom's version of New Age thinking.  And I show that, based on DIFFERENT quotes.   A more lucid critique would note the different ways that he utlizes subjective reality, depending on the context.  It actually may be a stronger critique, as if Pavlina is using subjective reality for different ends, then it is incoherent anyway, as a philosophy.

My observation remains you aren't critiquing fully, but only partially.

Now, of course, this probably means nothing more than his philosophy - such as it - isn't coherent - but you make the mistake of criticizing from partial analysis.   At least that's how I see it.

Again, I know you have a lot coming at you from many directions, so I'll drop this for now.  Clearly, we agree on much much much more, than we disagree on, am I'm glad for that!

For me, the important question is, the mechanics around intentional manifestation.  So I'll concentrate on that again.  The possibilities are:

a.  Responsible magical perspective:  The universe “responds” to a person;s shift in energy/awareness/thoughts, the same way that light resolves into particles/waves, depending on how you look at it.  this is the straight out magical perspective, in that there are vibratory currents in oneself, that attract and repel, like vibratory currents in one's life.   Take responsibility for the energies in oneself, the energies in the world will change automatically.

Criticism is - you virtually ignore the physical world to latch onto “thoughts” “vibrations”, as the KEY - ignoring the vast embedded universe, where things happen at the level they happen, because of the LAWS of those levels.
b.  The Tony Robbins perspective.  Magic is bunk, but, you can model your behavior in successful fashion, to call forth the results you want from yourself/life.  So you can alter your behavior into successful behavior (for different purposes) that achieves positive results.  *Functionally* this isn't too different than the magical interpretation, as the behavior altering that occurs in the individual, and the NLP guys says the behavior has been altered, and altered successfully to achieve positive results, while the magical guy says the internal vibration you are giving off (or your thoughts) have been altered, thus “attracting” the right result. 

But the NLP, of course,  is more practical, as it takes into account you can MODEL INCORRECTLY, thus you have to keep altering your behavior in response to feedback.  NOTE:  Pavlina tends to straddle both A and B, in his practical injunction in 'what a person needs to do”, but philosophically intrepets things as A.

The criticism of both A and B interpretations is that again, the developmental model of psychology isn't taken into account, or the physical or social framework that one is embedded in, isn't taken into account either.   You can't tell a suicidal guy “have a nice day”, or “change your thoughts”, as the dysfunction is happening on a level that is NOT ALTERABLE.  You can't tell a secular woman living in Afghanistan to throw off her veil, and live freely, because she will be killed.   So both A and B are embedded in an already free economy and social situation - where you aren't deeply impinged upon either psychologically, or socially.

c.  The integral framework.  We recognize the truths of each realm.  We recognize and acknowledge the physical laws. We recognize the developmental model.  We recognize the importance of social institutions in which we swim.  We recognize the illuminations of the spirit.  We recognize when progress happens.  And we recognize the mystery of all this, including psychic phemomena which happens, or the mysterious, which happens as well.

For the interal person - based in the best philosophy - even still, a very skilled, bright, competent person - say a master of modeling behavior, or even a person who is a master of implementing even more SUCCESSFULNEW behavior in the world - as Pavlina does - is useful, in his practical injunctions.   Though his philosophy may be f'd up.

And that's how I find him interesting.  That, and little things like accomplished chaos magicians, who can “manifest results” with their spells, that defy any rational explanation, and sound a lot like Pavlina's theory A above.  Those I also want to account for.

Pre-emptory disclaimer: I wander a