On Marc Gafni

[Balder]

William Harryman has posted a new blog on recent and past controversies surrounding Marc Gafni (and his support by prominent members of the Integral community) that might be of interest to members here.

 

Read the blog entry here.

 

 

[Nicole]

I applaud William for this. I remember times in the past when Marc was ardently defended by Integralists and until lately he had a place as contributor to IL. Instead of owning up to the fact that they were wrong, though, the Integral Life site just quietly dropped him perhaps hoping no one would notice, and coincidentally started championing the Masters and their support of Integral monogamy.

 

Come on, no one is perfect. I would have a lot more respect for IL were they simply to say, "We were wrong about Marc, we blew it, we are sorry and this is what we are doing to try to begin to make amends."

[infimitas]

I agree, a bit of humility would go a long, long way.

[Mary W.]

IL CEO Robb Smith's response to all of this (and ensuing discussion) is here: Where I Stand.

According to Robb, the dismantling of the relationship between Integral Life and Marc Gafni began a few months ago, and it was only recently that Gafni was removed as an IL teacher and contributor. 

So I'm wondering: did the IL managers think that no one would notice the dropping of Gafni, or that those who noticed it would not say anything publicly? Did Robb ever intend to make a public statement about it? Were they preparing one and just had not yet released it?

There has probably been a lot of internal disagreement about this at IL -- meaning, perhaps, that other things took priority over an official IL statement on Gafni.

I have no idea, of course. But it seems that the IL leadership should have known this would be publicly discussed sooner or later. Perhaps they simply thought it would happen "later."

[Mary W.]

And here is Marc Gafni's (fairly long) response to the controversy, from his website.

[Nicole]

Mary, thanks for the links. No comments on Marc's statement on his site yet? Really? I was reading trying to figure out if he has himself totally fooled or just the women he is with or also a coterie. But I have better things to do than to waste any more time puzzling over this guy.

[Joseph]

It seems to me that there is an arrogance in the Integral scene about "shadow work". Like, "I've done my shadow work, any problem you have is just your unresolved shadow side." It's a very utilitarian approach. Your shadow side is something you deal with, get out of the way, & it's handled. I think for Jung, the Shadow was a mystery that you lived with your entire life & hopefully one grew into a more integrated relationship with it. Jung, unlike any of the lights of the Integral community apparently, understood the virtue of humility.

 

I don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships in theory, but human reality being what it is, it's a messy business at best. When I was involved with Saniel Bonder's work, he was in an intimate relationship with 2 women & was very transparent about it. It was always a hot topic for gossip, & when it fell apart it was a public spectacle. He has since married one of his partners & settled into an apparently happy monogamy. Saniel was honest about his intimate relationships, & didn't publish long winded essays blaming others & covering his tracks. I'll give him that.

[Nicole]

Joseph, so true. Anyone who thinks that he or she can deal with shadow once and for all and move on to bigger and better things really doesn't understand the scope and longevity of shadow. And humility is indeed sadly lacking among the Wilberites. It seems in fact that they take pride in the size of their egos...

Joseph said:

It seems to me that there is an arrogance in the Integral scene about "shadow work". Like, "I've done my shadow work, any problem you have is just your unresolved shadow side." It's a very utilitarian approach. Your shadow side is something you deal with, get out of the way, & it's handled. I think for Jung, the Shadow was a mystery that you lived with your entire life & hopefully one grew into a more integrated relationship with it. Jung, unlike any of the lights of the Integral community apparently, understood the virtue of humility.

 

I don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships in theory, but human reality being what it is, it's a messy business at best. When I was involved with Saniel Bonder's work, he was in an intimate relationship with 2 women & was very transparent about it. It was always a hot topic for gossip, & when it fell apart it was a public spectacle. He has since married one of his partners & settled into an apparently happy monogamy. Saniel was honest about his intimate relationships, & didn't publish long winded essays blaming others & covering his tracks. I'll give him that.

[Edward theurj Berge]

This continuing fascination with what Gafni does, and what ILifers think or do about it, is in a sense complicit in its maintenance. They feed on this attention, even if negative. It's like an abused woman that after repeated episodes thinks this time will be the last, he'll really change now. There seems to come a point when one must walk away, regardless of the investment, write it off as lost and quit playing into the hope of change. This is why I've walked away from the trademarked integral crowd a long time ago; it ain't gonna change and it ain't worth any more of my precious time. To continue to want to change them for the sake of a higher humanity, that they are a necessary ingredient in evolution, whatever the rationalization, is simply that and reinforces their behavior with the attention. Gafni knows this, at least subconsciously, and plays it to perfection. As do his 'integral' enablers. Just my two cents.