Amie
02-04-2011, 10:44 AM
I am being somewhat silly with the title actually. Focusing ONLY on this article ("The Spiral of Life and Wisdom") from the "Integral Theory" section at presence.tv.. http://www.presence.tv/integral-theory/the-consciousness-within/components-of-change/the-spiral-of-life-and-wisdom/
I have a thought (and boy did that hurt! lol! kidding!):
Universal order is not based on external rules (Blue/Traditionalist) nor group bonds (Green/Postmodern), but on the grand unification of all things in all places.
The Holistic level of being is comfortable in working to bring about the emergence of a new spirituality, one based on inclusion and embrace – one aware of the cutting-edge ideas of both the physicist and the spiritual mystic.
In view of the "spiral" and self-assessment, I may fit most closely into "postintegral consciousness". However, the above statements don't seem to fit my thinking.
* For me, universal order is not necessary, there is only universe
.
* Universal order seems (please take note when I use the word "seems" because what follows is just what things appear to be from my current understanding and not a statement of what I see as definitive) more accurately fit with traditional consciousness. "Order" being "based" on a certain set of rules ("the grand unification of all things in all places").
* To "bring about the emergence" (practice) "based on inclusion and embrace" (rules) also seems to fit more accurately with traditional consciousness.
The paragraph just before the ones that I shared above is:
Level eight introduces us to the “whole” or “macro” level of being. It understands that everything is a part of a greater whole, that we are citizens of the world not just of particular nation-states. Holistic thinkers understand and utilize the flow of energy present within both people and systems. This level is concerned with broad movements and global earth issues often dealing with abstract and conceptual matters comfortably.
It is according to this that I see where I MIGHT fall under the "postintegral" category. It has seemed to me for a long time that our belief that we are divided comes from perspective. If you stand on the moon, the argument that we aren't already living in the same sand box is absurd. If you consider God's perspective (from within and without), the argument becomes even more absurd.
I would think that additionally, the idea of "bringing" unity would be equally as absurd. I know that the word "absurd" is used with negative devaluing power in theological debates online. My intention is not to degrade or devalue in like manner. Rather, it's more like Einstein's "Insanity" (Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result). I value the desire for unity very much. It is a precious heart that desires peace and unity imo. I lack the ability (currently) to see how I can create something that already exists.
Like the concept: "Unity is not made, it is realized". To me, that isn't about bringing anything new into being. It is about a revelation of truth, and then the integrity of truth as it is already. It's about discovery.
Solutions to new complex problems can be born out of a recognition of things shared, and so a common concern grows (and binds us) for that which is "ours"... individuality and group from within and without, the greater existence in which we share (world, universe, etc) from within and without, the other lives with which we share our existence (animals and other living things) from within and from without (with potential for evolving into a further understanding of "things shared"). The depth of value, to me, is at the bottom of the proverbial bottomless well.
In thinking about the spiral as a whole, I loved the way Tim King framed the "lower levels" as child-like and how we adore and value our children. At the very same time, I am concerned about an implied parent-child relationship in view of adults.
I read a book when Mike was a baby (18 years ago) entitled "I'm ok, you're ok" (Paige and Doug -- I had the title wrong when I brought it up in the car!). This was written by Dr. Thomas Harris (MD). He developed the "P-A-C" model. He believed that there were three states into which a person's psychological mind can switch: the Parent, the Adult, and the Child.
After describing the context for his belief of the significance of TA, Harris describes TA, starting from the observation that a person’s psychological state seems to change in response to different situations. The question is, from what and to what does it change? Harris answers this through a simplified introduction to TA, explaining Berne’s proposal that there are three states into which a person can switch: the Parent, the Adult and the Child.
Harris describes the mental state called the Parent by analogy, as a collection of "tape recordings" of external influences that a child observed adults doing and saying. The recording is a long list of rules and admonitions about the way the world is that the child was expected to believe unquestioningly. Many of these rules (for example: "Never run out in front of traffic") are useful and valid all through life; others ("Premarital sex is wrong", or "You can never trust a cop") are opinions that may be less helpful.
In parallel with those Parent recordings, the Child is a simultaneous recording of internal events — how life felt as a child. Harris equates these with the vivid recordings that Wilder Penfield was able to cause his patients to re-live by stimulating their brains. Harris proposes that, as adults, when we feel discouraged, it is as if we are re-living those Child memories yet the stimulus for re-living them may no longer be relevant or helpful in our lives.
According to Harris, humans start developing a third mental state, the Adult, about the time children start to walk and begin to achieve some measure of control over their environment. Instead of learning ideas directly from parents into the Parent, or experiencing simple emotion as the Child, children begin to be able to explore and examine the world and form their own opinions. They test the assertions of the Parent and Child and either update them or learn to suppress them. Thus the Adult inside us all develops over time, but it is very fragile and can be readily overwhelmed by stressful situations. Its strength is also tested through conflict between the simplistic ideas of the Parent and reality. Sometimes, Harris asserts, it is safer for a person to believe a lie than to acknowledge the evidence in front of them. This is called Contamination of the Adult.
To me, the above is very much in line with Alice Miller's "poisonous pedagogy".. the passing down of poison from parent to child.
There is also the observation that a child may identify with the parent (taking on those "tape recordings" for themselves and in application to their world), and a child might respond in doing the opposite ("I will never do this, think this, etc.") The world of a young child is limited in that often they experience shame if they do feel angry at a parent. Parents are seen as either good or evil, and to be angry is to condemn a parent (in their mind). There is a lack of consciousness of their actually feeling how they feel at the same time as loving their parents. That concept, some say, is foreign.
I see that playing out in the "post modern consciousness" in that there's an acknowledgement of feelings, yet the inability to recognize that they can own and experience those feelings without loss of love and the responsibility for their words and actions that come with loving.
Some children (for example myself, lol!) divide their parents in two as a means of coping. When my mom was "bouncing" (her head would slightly move when she was agitated), she was the "bad mom". The rest of the time, she was "Betty Crocker" ("good mom"). She has been diagnosed in the past (and denies it now) as "bipolar" so you might understand how I could interpret it that way. Yet as an adult I recognize that her refusal to acknowledge her problem and get help for it makes her responsible for the pain that making that choice causes others.
My stepdad was an alcoholic. When he was drunk, we saw him as "bad dad" (we as in me and my sister btw, who also recognized when mom was "bouncing"). When he was sober, he was "good dad". As an adult I know that "good dad" was really just someone jonesing for his alcohol. I also recognize, just like with my mom, that his choice not to get sober meant his choice to hurt us.
I am not assigning "blame". To me, there is a distinct difference between assigning blame and recognizing that the person who caused me harm has ownership in that. Blame is a place to direct my anger (to me). Recognition of responsibility means the ability to integrate love for my parents with permission to feel how I felt (and feel because my mom is still the same and my s'dad is sober but still sick). I am not betraying them with my pain.
So, while I wouldn't limit a change in psychological state wholly to "parent" (because not all kids identify with the negativity from parents), I find the language useful. I would ascribe that psychological state as "the law", lol!
Four life positions
The phrase I'm OK, You're OK is one of four "life positions" that each of us may take. The four positions are:
1. I'm Not OK, You're OK
2. I'm Not OK, You're Not OK
3. I'm OK, You're Not OK
4. I'm OK, You're OK
The most common position is I'm Not OK, You're OK. As children we see that adults are large, strong and competent and that we are little, weak and often make mistakes, so we conclude I'm Not OK, You're OK. Children who are abused may conclude I'm Not OK, You're Not OK or I'm OK, You're Not OK, but this is much less common. The emphasis of the book is helping people understand how their life position affects their communications (transactions) and relationships with practical examples.
You can see, that the doc does leave room for that choice not to identify with parents as well, but believes it's "much less common". Maybe so :-).
I’m OK, You’re OK continues by providing practical advice to begin decoding the physical and verbal clues required to analyze transactions. For example, Harris suggests signs that a person is in a Parent ego state can include the use of evaluative words that imply judgment based on an automatic, axiomatic and archaic value system: words like ‘stupid, naughty, ridiculous, disgusting, should or ought’ (though the latter can also be used in the Adult ego state).
Recognize the spiral in there?
He argues that insights can be gained by examining the degree to which an individual’s Adult ego state is contaminated by the other ego states. He summarizes contamination of the Adult by the Parent as "prejudice" and contamination of the Adult by the Child as "delusion". A healthy individual is able to separate these states. Yet, Harris argues, a functioning person does need all three ego states to be present in their psyche in order for them to be complete. Someone who excludes (i.e. blocks out) their Child completely cannot play and enjoy life; while someone who excludes their Parent ego state can be a danger to society (they may become a manipulative psychopath who does not feel shame, remorse, embarrassment or guilt).
If you want to read more of the summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_OK,_You're_OK
I like that he was thinking towards a way to take responsibility for the ego rather than to overcome it or do away with it. I would wish for his sake, that he might recognize that one of his ego states is saying to the other: "I'm ok, you're not ok" when he is capable of taking responsibility for every ego state. (Maybe he already has that assurance by now!) While I agree that "I don't own myself for myself", I also agree that "I own myself". See what I mean?
Peter K. Gerlach, MSW (http://www.sfhelp.org/site/pkg.htm) similarly suggests that there are three "respect messages" that effects the quality of "every spoken and unspoken communication":
"Here and now, you (seem to) value your needs, worth, and dig-nity..
More than mine, so you feel 1-up (superior) and I'm 1-down"; or...
less than mine, so you feel 1-down (inferior) and I'm 1-up"; or...
equally with mine
I remember Dr. Harris describing how the PAC model is applied to communication, which in my opinion breaks down (along with other stuffs) as such:
*Parent = Rules/law. Arguing them, proving them, or just telling them. This also communicates a "1-up" respect message. Interesting when framed that way, aye? Especially in terms of the spiral model being framed parentally. I DO NOT think that was Tim's meaning behind his communication of framework. I think that he was trying to find words for valuing all levels. Words can have consequences, especially if folks catch on to this and begin to communicate the "1-up" respect message. Their expression would often actually be reflective of their view of themselves ("my needs, my value, my dignity, is/are superior").
One challenge that I'm sure Tim and Doug (King) have already been confronted with in presenting their spiral, is with "hierarchal" connotations.
*Adult = Shares perspective, point of view, opinion "equally". This is also known as peer to peer communication. Again, communication (whether verbal or not) is often revealing of the internal living going on. This is a place of mutual respect and value. If you traveled waaaaaay back in time, would you be able to sit with "archaic man" and genuinely feel that mutuality between you? That may also be indicative of how you deal with that part of yourself.
*Child = Tantrums (undealt with emotions), a vacuum of needs. "I feel sad and want to feel happy. I believe that ___ would make me happy. If I can't have it I'll cry and kick!" This is the perceived inferiority of the child (A "1-down" respect message) in supplying their own needs. Many people have grown up without learning that, and live from this point of view. It is also, imo, the reason for "victim mentality" in that the blame for their unhappiness is aimed at everyone and everything but themselves. (Of course, "Parents" are all to happy to rescue, which actually suggests "Parent is meeting their needs by meeting child's needs".)
Tim shared in his presentation the respect given to folks "lower" on the spiral. The point is not to try and drag them up the spiral. There is still parental connotation there, yet I perceive some healthier parenting, lol!
So how do we deal with these challenges in communicating as we go on? Do you think that we share a broader field of vision? How can respect be preserved in that case? Any thoughts? (I know this is a lot!)
Amie
I have a thought (and boy did that hurt! lol! kidding!):
Universal order is not based on external rules (Blue/Traditionalist) nor group bonds (Green/Postmodern), but on the grand unification of all things in all places.
The Holistic level of being is comfortable in working to bring about the emergence of a new spirituality, one based on inclusion and embrace – one aware of the cutting-edge ideas of both the physicist and the spiritual mystic.
In view of the "spiral" and self-assessment, I may fit most closely into "postintegral consciousness". However, the above statements don't seem to fit my thinking.
* For me, universal order is not necessary, there is only universe
.
* Universal order seems (please take note when I use the word "seems" because what follows is just what things appear to be from my current understanding and not a statement of what I see as definitive) more accurately fit with traditional consciousness. "Order" being "based" on a certain set of rules ("the grand unification of all things in all places").
* To "bring about the emergence" (practice) "based on inclusion and embrace" (rules) also seems to fit more accurately with traditional consciousness.
The paragraph just before the ones that I shared above is:
Level eight introduces us to the “whole” or “macro” level of being. It understands that everything is a part of a greater whole, that we are citizens of the world not just of particular nation-states. Holistic thinkers understand and utilize the flow of energy present within both people and systems. This level is concerned with broad movements and global earth issues often dealing with abstract and conceptual matters comfortably.
It is according to this that I see where I MIGHT fall under the "postintegral" category. It has seemed to me for a long time that our belief that we are divided comes from perspective. If you stand on the moon, the argument that we aren't already living in the same sand box is absurd. If you consider God's perspective (from within and without), the argument becomes even more absurd.
I would think that additionally, the idea of "bringing" unity would be equally as absurd. I know that the word "absurd" is used with negative devaluing power in theological debates online. My intention is not to degrade or devalue in like manner. Rather, it's more like Einstein's "Insanity" (Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result). I value the desire for unity very much. It is a precious heart that desires peace and unity imo. I lack the ability (currently) to see how I can create something that already exists.
Like the concept: "Unity is not made, it is realized". To me, that isn't about bringing anything new into being. It is about a revelation of truth, and then the integrity of truth as it is already. It's about discovery.
Solutions to new complex problems can be born out of a recognition of things shared, and so a common concern grows (and binds us) for that which is "ours"... individuality and group from within and without, the greater existence in which we share (world, universe, etc) from within and without, the other lives with which we share our existence (animals and other living things) from within and from without (with potential for evolving into a further understanding of "things shared"). The depth of value, to me, is at the bottom of the proverbial bottomless well.
In thinking about the spiral as a whole, I loved the way Tim King framed the "lower levels" as child-like and how we adore and value our children. At the very same time, I am concerned about an implied parent-child relationship in view of adults.
I read a book when Mike was a baby (18 years ago) entitled "I'm ok, you're ok" (Paige and Doug -- I had the title wrong when I brought it up in the car!). This was written by Dr. Thomas Harris (MD). He developed the "P-A-C" model. He believed that there were three states into which a person's psychological mind can switch: the Parent, the Adult, and the Child.
After describing the context for his belief of the significance of TA, Harris describes TA, starting from the observation that a person’s psychological state seems to change in response to different situations. The question is, from what and to what does it change? Harris answers this through a simplified introduction to TA, explaining Berne’s proposal that there are three states into which a person can switch: the Parent, the Adult and the Child.
Harris describes the mental state called the Parent by analogy, as a collection of "tape recordings" of external influences that a child observed adults doing and saying. The recording is a long list of rules and admonitions about the way the world is that the child was expected to believe unquestioningly. Many of these rules (for example: "Never run out in front of traffic") are useful and valid all through life; others ("Premarital sex is wrong", or "You can never trust a cop") are opinions that may be less helpful.
In parallel with those Parent recordings, the Child is a simultaneous recording of internal events — how life felt as a child. Harris equates these with the vivid recordings that Wilder Penfield was able to cause his patients to re-live by stimulating their brains. Harris proposes that, as adults, when we feel discouraged, it is as if we are re-living those Child memories yet the stimulus for re-living them may no longer be relevant or helpful in our lives.
According to Harris, humans start developing a third mental state, the Adult, about the time children start to walk and begin to achieve some measure of control over their environment. Instead of learning ideas directly from parents into the Parent, or experiencing simple emotion as the Child, children begin to be able to explore and examine the world and form their own opinions. They test the assertions of the Parent and Child and either update them or learn to suppress them. Thus the Adult inside us all develops over time, but it is very fragile and can be readily overwhelmed by stressful situations. Its strength is also tested through conflict between the simplistic ideas of the Parent and reality. Sometimes, Harris asserts, it is safer for a person to believe a lie than to acknowledge the evidence in front of them. This is called Contamination of the Adult.
To me, the above is very much in line with Alice Miller's "poisonous pedagogy".. the passing down of poison from parent to child.
There is also the observation that a child may identify with the parent (taking on those "tape recordings" for themselves and in application to their world), and a child might respond in doing the opposite ("I will never do this, think this, etc.") The world of a young child is limited in that often they experience shame if they do feel angry at a parent. Parents are seen as either good or evil, and to be angry is to condemn a parent (in their mind). There is a lack of consciousness of their actually feeling how they feel at the same time as loving their parents. That concept, some say, is foreign.
I see that playing out in the "post modern consciousness" in that there's an acknowledgement of feelings, yet the inability to recognize that they can own and experience those feelings without loss of love and the responsibility for their words and actions that come with loving.
Some children (for example myself, lol!) divide their parents in two as a means of coping. When my mom was "bouncing" (her head would slightly move when she was agitated), she was the "bad mom". The rest of the time, she was "Betty Crocker" ("good mom"). She has been diagnosed in the past (and denies it now) as "bipolar" so you might understand how I could interpret it that way. Yet as an adult I recognize that her refusal to acknowledge her problem and get help for it makes her responsible for the pain that making that choice causes others.
My stepdad was an alcoholic. When he was drunk, we saw him as "bad dad" (we as in me and my sister btw, who also recognized when mom was "bouncing"). When he was sober, he was "good dad". As an adult I know that "good dad" was really just someone jonesing for his alcohol. I also recognize, just like with my mom, that his choice not to get sober meant his choice to hurt us.
I am not assigning "blame". To me, there is a distinct difference between assigning blame and recognizing that the person who caused me harm has ownership in that. Blame is a place to direct my anger (to me). Recognition of responsibility means the ability to integrate love for my parents with permission to feel how I felt (and feel because my mom is still the same and my s'dad is sober but still sick). I am not betraying them with my pain.
So, while I wouldn't limit a change in psychological state wholly to "parent" (because not all kids identify with the negativity from parents), I find the language useful. I would ascribe that psychological state as "the law", lol!
Four life positions
The phrase I'm OK, You're OK is one of four "life positions" that each of us may take. The four positions are:
1. I'm Not OK, You're OK
2. I'm Not OK, You're Not OK
3. I'm OK, You're Not OK
4. I'm OK, You're OK
The most common position is I'm Not OK, You're OK. As children we see that adults are large, strong and competent and that we are little, weak and often make mistakes, so we conclude I'm Not OK, You're OK. Children who are abused may conclude I'm Not OK, You're Not OK or I'm OK, You're Not OK, but this is much less common. The emphasis of the book is helping people understand how their life position affects their communications (transactions) and relationships with practical examples.
You can see, that the doc does leave room for that choice not to identify with parents as well, but believes it's "much less common". Maybe so :-).
I’m OK, You’re OK continues by providing practical advice to begin decoding the physical and verbal clues required to analyze transactions. For example, Harris suggests signs that a person is in a Parent ego state can include the use of evaluative words that imply judgment based on an automatic, axiomatic and archaic value system: words like ‘stupid, naughty, ridiculous, disgusting, should or ought’ (though the latter can also be used in the Adult ego state).
Recognize the spiral in there?
He argues that insights can be gained by examining the degree to which an individual’s Adult ego state is contaminated by the other ego states. He summarizes contamination of the Adult by the Parent as "prejudice" and contamination of the Adult by the Child as "delusion". A healthy individual is able to separate these states. Yet, Harris argues, a functioning person does need all three ego states to be present in their psyche in order for them to be complete. Someone who excludes (i.e. blocks out) their Child completely cannot play and enjoy life; while someone who excludes their Parent ego state can be a danger to society (they may become a manipulative psychopath who does not feel shame, remorse, embarrassment or guilt).
If you want to read more of the summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_OK,_You're_OK
I like that he was thinking towards a way to take responsibility for the ego rather than to overcome it or do away with it. I would wish for his sake, that he might recognize that one of his ego states is saying to the other: "I'm ok, you're not ok" when he is capable of taking responsibility for every ego state. (Maybe he already has that assurance by now!) While I agree that "I don't own myself for myself", I also agree that "I own myself". See what I mean?
Peter K. Gerlach, MSW (http://www.sfhelp.org/site/pkg.htm) similarly suggests that there are three "respect messages" that effects the quality of "every spoken and unspoken communication":
"Here and now, you (seem to) value your needs, worth, and dig-nity..
More than mine, so you feel 1-up (superior) and I'm 1-down"; or...
less than mine, so you feel 1-down (inferior) and I'm 1-up"; or...
equally with mine
I remember Dr. Harris describing how the PAC model is applied to communication, which in my opinion breaks down (along with other stuffs) as such:
*Parent = Rules/law. Arguing them, proving them, or just telling them. This also communicates a "1-up" respect message. Interesting when framed that way, aye? Especially in terms of the spiral model being framed parentally. I DO NOT think that was Tim's meaning behind his communication of framework. I think that he was trying to find words for valuing all levels. Words can have consequences, especially if folks catch on to this and begin to communicate the "1-up" respect message. Their expression would often actually be reflective of their view of themselves ("my needs, my value, my dignity, is/are superior").
One challenge that I'm sure Tim and Doug (King) have already been confronted with in presenting their spiral, is with "hierarchal" connotations.
*Adult = Shares perspective, point of view, opinion "equally". This is also known as peer to peer communication. Again, communication (whether verbal or not) is often revealing of the internal living going on. This is a place of mutual respect and value. If you traveled waaaaaay back in time, would you be able to sit with "archaic man" and genuinely feel that mutuality between you? That may also be indicative of how you deal with that part of yourself.
*Child = Tantrums (undealt with emotions), a vacuum of needs. "I feel sad and want to feel happy. I believe that ___ would make me happy. If I can't have it I'll cry and kick!" This is the perceived inferiority of the child (A "1-down" respect message) in supplying their own needs. Many people have grown up without learning that, and live from this point of view. It is also, imo, the reason for "victim mentality" in that the blame for their unhappiness is aimed at everyone and everything but themselves. (Of course, "Parents" are all to happy to rescue, which actually suggests "Parent is meeting their needs by meeting child's needs".)
Tim shared in his presentation the respect given to folks "lower" on the spiral. The point is not to try and drag them up the spiral. There is still parental connotation there, yet I perceive some healthier parenting, lol!
So how do we deal with these challenges in communicating as we go on? Do you think that we share a broader field of vision? How can respect be preserved in that case? Any thoughts? (I know this is a lot!)
Amie