Why I Will NOT Be Watching the Olympics.

It was almost 19 years ago, though it seems like only yesterday. I was watching on TV as the news relayed images of what appeared to be the start of a movement toward democracy in China. Students and others had crafted a "Goddess of Democracy" and were occupying Tiananmen Square.




I was only 10 at the time, but I still vividly remember some of the images I saw on TV. I remember the images of excited students. I remember the images of the beginning of the Chinese crackdown. But mostly, I remember the iconic photograph of a single defiant man staring down a string of tanks as they approached an intersection with the Avenue of Eternal Peace. It would be years before I was able to really appreciate the depth of courage and outrage that such an act would require.




What is truly amazing about the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, is that many younger Chinese citizens are unaware of the incident altogether, as in China information about what happened is heavily suppressed. The Great Firewall of China effectively screens out 'inconvenient' information such as that pertaining to 1989. It pains me to know that there are teens in China who are ignorant about their own history in such a fundamental way. It is bizarre to think that China, a country of long history, is having its memory kept alive by those of us outside her borders.

The events of 1989 are not an aberration. The Chinese government has also had a history of suppressing those dissenting to their occupation of Tibet. As was made vivid again in recent days, the present Chinese government is bent on control and suppression of any descent.



China has also been implicated in stalling international action in the Darfur region. This stalling of action may have resulted in numerous additional deaths as well as the displacement of countless persons. What has been going on in Darfur has specifically been called genocide by the US and others.



So what does all this have to do with the Olympic games? Simple, China is playing host to them this year. The Beijing 2008 games will be a sort of 'coming out party' for China. The question is: should we other citizens of the world allow them to have their party and turn a blind eye to the outright atrocities that have been perpetrated in recent years? I for one say no. This year I will NOT be watching the Olympic games and I will be encouraging others to do likewise. I will also do my best to avoid supporting any individuals or corporations who are willing to turn a blind eye to freedom, Darfur, Tibet, and Tiananmen Square. For those who do choose to attend, I ask you to think long and hard while walking the streets of Beijing... is that heaviness in your chest smog aggravated asthma or the sputtering remnants of your conscience?

 

Green Spin, Turquoise Reframing, and Multiple Perspectives.

Lately, I have been thinking a good deal about how to best communicate the differences between what I consider to be Green Spin and Turquoise Reframing.  I came to the conclusion that the best way to give a rough feel for the distinctions as I see them would be to employ a little visual metaphor. 

Below is a reversible image of either a vase or two faces.  It reverses depending on what is considered to be foreground and what is considered to be background.  Underneath that is the duck / rabbit illusion.  The picture can be seen a both a duck and a rabbit.

Now imagine you are a therapist and that a client comes in to see you.  Their chief complaint is that they are depressed about being either a vase or a duck.  Let us see what the difference between 'spin' and 'reframing' would be in addressing such a concern.

(Spin Vase/Faces)

Client: "Doc I am so damn depressed these days... I hate being a vase."

Therapist: "Well you do not have to see yourself as just a vase.  You can also be lots of other things as well like a cup or a paperweight or a..."

Client: "You can stop right there.  It is nice of you to point out that there are still other things I can do... but none of it really changes the fact that I am really a vase deep down inside... anything else is just a lie... maybe a pleasant lie... but a lie nonetheless."

(Reframing Vase/Faces)

Client: "Doc I am so damn depressed these days... I hate being a vase."

Therapist: "What makes you so sure you are a vase?"

Client: "Well just look at my outline doc, isn't obvious that I am a vase?"

Therapist: "When I look at you, I see someone who could be a vase or could just as easily be two faces about to meet."

Client: "Wow.  I have never really seen myself that way before... Wow... I've got some thinking to do..."

(Spin Duck/Rabbit)

Client: "I am sick of flying and being a bird.  It sucks.  I am doomed to forever be a flying bird."

Therapist: "Well have you ever considered that in some ways you are more like a fish than other birds?  I mean you can swim quit well so you do not always have to be a flying bird you could be a swimming bird instead.  There are lots of birds who swim instead of fly... penguins for example."

Client: "You just do not get it.  By being a duck I am never gonna be able to move fast on land."

Therapist: "Well ostriches are quite fast runners.  Maybe if you get to know a few of them they will teach you how birds can run fast."

Client: "You really do not get it.  They are so big and I am nowhere near their size.  It would never work for me."

(Reframing Duck/Rabbit)

Client: "I am sick of flying and being a bird.  It sucks.  I am doomed to forever be a flying bird."

Therapist: "Who says you are doomed to being a bird."

Client: "Me, because I am."

Therapist: "You see yourself as such now... but what if I told you that you could be a fuzzy mammal that is a quick ground-dweller what would you say to that?"

Client: "Ha!  What are you on doc?  There is no way."

Therapist: "When I look at your situation from this angle here {pointing out}, I can see how you could be a duck or you could be a rabbit if you chose to see yourself that way."

Client: "Holy Cow!  I could be a rabbit!  That means I am not just stuck being a bird after all!"

Ok what is the difference between 'spinning' and 'reframing?'  In the 'spin' scenario, the therapist largely accepts the same framing as the client but tries to be a little more 'creative' in their interpretation of what a vase or duck is or can do.  The client's self-image is largely the same, but with maybe a little more flexibility.  Also it is important to note that while there is a little more flexibility, it may feel a little 'forced' because the flexibility is to some degree a distortion of the most accurate interpretation of the given perspective.  In the 'reframing' example, the therapist presented a radically new possibility that was still fully commensurate with the data presented but involved a shift of perspective about the data presented.  While in the reframe scenario the option presented was far more different from the original client self-image than in the spin scenario, it had a better chance of 'clicking' with the client and being accepted.

Now, a quick note about altitude.  In my opinion some things can be pointed out to those at a lower altitude that will help them to see their situation in a new light or from a new angle.  It is also my opinion that some things cannot be pointed out those without a sufficient degree of altitude to grasp them.  I am sorry if that might sound somewhat elitist, but it appears to be in-line with the simple facts.  See for example Piaget's work on development.  Kids in one stage will not grasp concepts from higher stages.  The same appears to be true for Post-Formal Operations.  Some 'things' require a certain number of perspectives be held simultaneously in order to be perceived.  To point this out, I have a visual example as well.

Stereo images cannot be fully perceived by people with only one eye.  Also a certain portion of the population may have difficulty seeing what is hidden in an autostereogram even if they have both eyes.  Below is an image that will 'pop out' in 3-D.  Some people will be able to see it.  Some people will not be able to see it. 

Now let us assume that you are able to see the image.  Let us further assume that you try to show this to another person and they simply do not see it.  They may or may not believe you that it is actually possible to see the image in question.  They may or may not be able to imaginatively conceptualize what the image might look like from your description of it.  What they are apparently not able to do, is see the picture for themselves.

Let us imagine that we meet a race of aliens that are cyclopes.  We try to explain to them that because of our extra eye we are able to see a 'deeper layer' in an otherwise 2-D representation.  Some of them may believe us.  Some of them may consider us a little deluded and/or elitist for pretending that we really are capable of seeing things that they themselves cannot.

What is the point of all of this?  Well what if an individual who is really at Turquoise altitude were to try to explain to someone at Amber or Orange or Green altitude some of the 'things' they can 'see' from Turquoise altitude?  How would the other individuals respond?   How would individuals who are at a lower altitude respond to the claim that 'there are some things you cannot see because you are unable to hold a sufficient number of perspectives to see them?'  I am guessing that they would simply dismiss the Turquoise individual as 'simply wrong,' 'lacking observable evidence,' and 'elitist' because just as it takes more than one optical perspective to create a virtual 3-D 'object,' it takes a certain number of perspectives to see the 'objects' disclosed by mature Vision Logic.

MarkII

 

Robert Anton Wilson, Implicit Beliefs, Reframing, and Flexible Perspectives

What do the phrases: "men are pigs," "being depressed makes me worthless," "the stars are up in the sky," "Muslims are terrorists," "water boils at 212 degrees," "he is always angry," "I am a terrible husband," and "Hillary Clinton is a bitch" all have in common?

Answer: they are all somewhat sloppy ways to attempt to express true but partial perspectives.

Surely they are not all equally true you say... well let us investigate them and the way we humans often like to go about making meaning for ourselves.

Robert Anton Wilson (RAW) was a writer who passed away in early 2007.  He would frequently write or speak about the need to be more open to the possibility that truth is somewhat perspectival and that maps or models are just that... maps and models and not the actual/real/whole/eternal Truth with a capitol 'T.'  He has been quoted as saying that his work was an "attempt to break down conditioned associations-to look at the world in a new way, with many models recognized as models (maps) and no one model elevated to the Truth."  Or alternatly that his position consisted of "never regarding any model or map of the universe with total 100% belief or total 100% denial."  He often mirrored Nietzsche's assertion that "belief means not wanting to know what is true" paraphrasing it as "belief is the death of intelligence."

In effect he seems to me to have been doing (at least) two things.  He was inviting us to take the capitol letters off of Belief and Truth.  He was also pointing to the fact that all perspectives are true but partial.  True enough from their referential frame and quite partial in that they usually exclude many (if not all) other partial truths.  A simplification of this might be the maxim: "all perspectives are true but partial... including this one."

So let us examine some of those phrases mentioned above in turn:

"Men are pigs" could also be expressed as: "speaking from my present emotional state I think at least some men appear to me to be pigs."  There is a big difference between the two.  One is an absolute pronouncement for all men throughout all space-time, the other is a true, if metaphorical, pronouncement of how one feels frustrated and/or hurt.

"Being depressed makes me worthless" could be alternately expressed as: "at the times when I am feeling depressed it is easy for me to feel worthless as well."  The first statement implicitly assumes depression and worthlessness are fixed parts of the self.  The second is an expression of a perceived connection between two emotional states that are to some degree transient.

Surely the phrase "the stars are up in the sky" must be true right?  Well, maybe a better way to put it would be: "at this point in time, with reference to my current assignment of 'down' as the direction I am presently being pulled by the Earth's gravity, some stars presently appear to be located 'above' me."  If the Earth continues to spin and/or if I go to say the other side of the planet the same stars will be in different locations relative to the directional pull of Earth's gravity, and hence might even be 'down.'

"Muslims are terrorists" might be more accurately stated something like: "given my current state of some knowledge and some ignorance about the Islamic faith, some people I take to be Muslim appear to be terrorists when viewed by me on TV after September 11, 2001."  The first sentence can be read to imply that all A are B.  The second sentence can be read as some things I take to be A Appear to me to Be B in Context C on Date D.  The first is an absolute pronouncement, the second a description of perspective.

Surely "water boils at 212 degrees" can't just be merely a perspective right?  Well actually it is a perspective that lacks sufficient context.  Maybe it could be expressed as "pure H2O boils at 212 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale at a pressure commonly found at the altitude of sea level."  Of course the Devil's advocate might ask about the terms 'pure' and 'sea level.'

"He is always angry," leaves out much in the way of context.  Angry when?  Angry with what or whom?  As determined how by whom?  etc.

"I am a terrible husband" could be expressed as "I am someone who sometimes, maybe even often, believes he is doing a terrible job in his role as a husband."  The first framing allows no argument, "terrible," end of story.  The second framing actually allows more flexibility and in fact could be seen as evidence that the person is a somewhat good husband in that he cares so deeply about this role that worries about how well he is performing in it.  

"Hillary Clinton is a bitch," is in some ways a very meaningless statement; or possibly a statement with too much possible meaning.  Is she a female dog?  Doe she complain often?  Is she a tough problem?  I she Alanis Morissette?  Is she Elton John?  Is she cool in the eyes of Bill and Ted?  Is she an assertive female in the positive sense?  Is she an assertive female in the negative sense?  So called 'swear words' often have such protean meaning that they are extremely context dependent.  Some possible alternate ways to say this sentence might be: "I do not like Hillary Clinton and I want you to know it," "I do not like Hillary Clinton and I want you to agree with me on this point," "I think Hillary Clinton is too mean or harsh," "I think Hillary Clinton is acting too much like a man for a woman," "I think Hillary Clinton has got some toughness," etc.  What do all of those have in common?  They are the speaker's own opinion rather than an immutable character trait in a presidential candidate. 

Just for fun... just to see if you were paying attention I will add a paraphrase of joke I recently heard told by Mugaku Sensei on Zen-Eye.org

A father and his son went out on a camping trip together.  It was one of those classic attempts at father-son bonding.  The father was trying to reconnect with his son because he had been working such extreme hours lately and he was aware that he and his son were drifting a little apart.  While hiking near a cliff the son accidentally fell and was seriously hurt.  The father rushed him to the nearest hospital.  When they arrived, the surgeon came out and said to the father "there is no way I can perform this surgery because this boy is my son."

Why couldn't the doctor perform the surgery?

What was the problem?

Scroll-Down

Keep-Scrolling

The answer is that the doctor was the boy's mother.  Did you think a doctor has to be a man? 

If this was surprising to you, ask yourself how many other contexts you are assuming as you story your beliefs about the world.

Mark

Lawyers, Tribes, Soldiers, and Nukes Oh My! 
An Examination of the Altitudes at Play in Pakistan

Just what is going on in Pakistan these days?  The short answer is turmoil.  The longer answer is a complicated, nuanced, and protean plot that is far beyond the scope of a single blog entry.  What I will suggest here, however, is that what is going on in Pakistan can be in some ways understood as a struggle for power between a range of factions at different developmental altitudes.  Before conducting this brief analysis, a word on altitudes...

What is altitude?  The short answer is that altitude is the level of vertical development that someone generally acts from in a given line of development.  Just like when one climbs up a mountain, the higher one's altitude the wider and farther one's perspective becomes.  I will use two correlated color schemes as they appear to be popular in describing a relative level of perspective.  I will use both Spiral Dynamics and Wilber's Altitude colors so that throughout it will be SD/WA.  For some background reading check out here for Spiral Dynamics, here for Wilber's Altitude, and here for related work by Susanne Cook-Greuter.

What is going on in Pakistan then from this perspective?  Well, at the very least, there are 4 major factions that are warring for control of the country. 

There is a combination of Purple/Magenta and Red/Red in the tribal regions of Waziristan.  In this region tribal factions, power relations, and alliances are the way of life.  Frontline and others have reported on the fact that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters are active in this area and are often given shelter and support by various parties within this region.  Since much of this region opperates on combination of force and tribal relationships, this area is largely outside of any real control of the Pakistani millitary and is resistant to being under any real juristiction of the Pakistani central government.  In recent days it may be the case that various factions from this area have been venturing out of their tribal areas and more openly going to other areas of the country.  There have even been reports of millitants openly waking the streets of various cities.

Largely controlling the country is the Pakistani millitary.  This force is currently serving as a soure of Blue/Amber order in the country.  Musharraf and the military came to power in October 1999 when they effectively refused to follow the orders of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.  While speculation is running rampant in Pakistan at the present time, it appears that Musharraf is still in control of the rigid-order institution of the millitary at this time.  The millitary appears to be trying to achieve/maintain order at any cost... even if that means arresting lawyers, judges, and other members of civil institutions and suspending the country's constitution.

Reacting in outrage to the suspention of the constitution by Musharraf, are the country's judges and lawyers.  They represent the more Orange/Orange rational and democratic institutions in the country.  They are upset that Musharraf is still acting as a defacto dictator in the country.  They have been protesting a whole series of actions that Musharraf has taken.  They are seeking a rule by fair laws not a rule of strong men.  They see the present government as undemocratic and a threat to Pakistan's future prospects.

What are the stakes for any particular faction maintaining or siezing control?  Well Pakistan is a country that has nuclear weopons and is situatated in close proximity to several volitile regions and countries.  Whomever wins out could potentially have a great impact on the world stage one way or another.  'Loose nukes' could also be a real probelm if the country's instability persists for long.

How should the international community address the situation in Pakistan?  Well if it is a question of just wanting order maybe the international community shoud support a milirtary dictator for the time being.  If it is a question of elections and institutions the international community should back the rule of law.  But elections alone, do not a democracy make.  What happens if a fair (Orange) election merely succeds in transfering power form Musharraf's millitary (Blue/Amber) to a popular movement that is backed and supported by tribal leaders (Red/Red & Purple/Magenta)?  Does the world really want to see tribal forces in possession of sophisticated weopons of war? 

I personally do not have any easy answers at this time.  I would submit, however, that merely picking one's favorite level of development will not do in this case.  The international community will need to consider the overall developmental picture in the country and support the course of action that appears to promote the most good in the world at large. 

One thing is clear, like the old curse, Pakistan and the world as a whole are living in 'interesting times.'

Mark

Happy Gustav Fechner Day!

Who or what is a Gustav Fechner you may ask? Well Gustav is, well was, a who. He created the area of psychology called psychophysics when, on October 22, 1850, he came up with the formula S = k log R (often rendered now as S = K log I). Standard academic psychology largely remembers Fechner for his formula opening the door to the mathematical investigation of the relationship between the world of physical sensation and subjective experience.

Fechner was an absolutely prolific writer who is credited with 183 articles and 81 books (see Bringmann, Bringmann, & Balance, 1992; Hergenhahn, 2005). Many were written under the pseudonym "Dr. Mises." What is interesting is that many of Fechner's works were not dry, materialistic, treatises but satire, philosophy, and spiritual speculation. He speculated that real wakefulness was not yet in the general human condition. Far from the dry academic, Fechner was interested in parapsychology and mysticism. He is reported to have attended several séances in which he experienced anomalous phenomena. His last work explicitly examines as its title states, The Dayview as Compared to the Nightview. That is, his final work was a comparison of the view that the whole universe is inwardly conscious with the view that it was merely inert matter without purpose.

So on this day I wish you a Happy Gustav Fechner Day! Which Gustav Fechner am I remembering and celebrating? The only one that there was, the Gustav who was greater than any (apparently) unbridgeable divide between the worlds of scientific rigor and mystical experience.




Thanks Gustav!

Mark



Readings:

Bringmann, W. G., Bringmann, W. M., & Balance, W. D. G. (1992). Gustav Theodor Fechner: Columbus of the new psychology. Journal of Pastoral Counseling: An Annual, 27, 52-62.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (2005). An introduction to the history of psychology (5th ed.). Toronto: Wadsworth.

Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology. Boston: Shambhala.

 

Reading, Listening, and Responding: What Does Integral Encounter Look Like?

{Danger Will Robinson!  Danger!  This post gets a little rambling!}

How do we really hear one another?  What is it to engage in real communication?  How is each of our ways of being experienced by the other?  Do we ever really stop and examine our ways of being and interacting with others?

Lately a few ideas have been cross-fertilizing in my mind and have gelled into a sort of wondering...  More on that a little later, but first some more direct statements about what integral communications might look like.

Relatively recently I came across a paper by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens in which he details the ways in which the Integral Model can be incorporated into the classroom through concrete praxis.  I will quote at some length from pages 20-22 here:

"One defining characteristic of Integral Education is its emphasis on transformative practices that connect the five elements of Integral Theory to people's lived experience, direct awareness, and embodied presence. Both teachers and students can engage in a variety of practices to exercise, strengthen, and cultivate their own Integral awareness. Every moment in and out of class can be used to deepen one's own embodiment and transformation.

The following ten practices are ones that I use in my courses at JFKU to support the development of Integral Awareness in myself and my students. Students are expected to work with these in every class as well as at home. Class time is often set aside to hear about people's experiences with the practices and to give additional instructions on them. These ten practices interface with the five elements in numerous ways as should be obvious by the context.

*Embodied Reading: When you read the weekly assignments, read with your whole body (i.e., all three: gross, subtle, and causal). Be attentive to somatic states, presence, reactions, and your desire to read more or to not read at all.

*Engaged Reading: When you read the weekly assignments, read with your whole mind (i.e., all four major states). Be attentive to what excites you. Take notes, underline, identify questions, and outline key points/arguments.

*Presence: When you are listening to others speak, be present and fully attentive; when others speak, do not use it as a chance to collapse into your own world. Remain open to the mystery of the person talking. Feel your body, open your heart, and clear your mind.

*Reflective Dialogue: When you want to speak, reflect on how your contribution will deepen the conversation. Do not just talk to make a point or to have your cool idea heard. Be willing to not raise your hand and be willing to raise it. Notice how long you talk.

*Shadow Work: Be aware of your tendency towards projection, splitting things into "all good" and "all bad," and other defenses such as rationalization and intellectualizing.

*Inquiry: Continually inquire into your own experience and be reflective of how you are contracted and/or open.

*Perspective Taking: Be open to perspectives, especially those that seem problematic or challenge your own. Take as many perspectives as you can, seeing the truth context of each.

*Self-authorship: Notice how you are often concerned with what people think of you, what the "rules" are, how to fit in, and so on. Continually embrace opportunities to strengthen your capacity to self-author and be autonomous in a non-egocentric way.

*Witnessing: Be aware of the part of your awareness that is absolutely free from contraction and is always witnessing everything that arises in each moment.

*Daily Meditation: Engage in some form of spiritual practice on a regular basis (e.g., breath counting, prayer, body scans, vipassana, yoga, visualization).

These ten practices serve to make the Integral Psychology program at JFKU transformational for teachers, students, and the classroom. These practices inevitably bring teachers and students into direct contact with the four perspective-dimensions of the quadrants, various levels of their own awareness-embodiment, various developmental lines/capacities, numerous states of being, and the many types of learning that are conducive to their own growth. In other words, these practices help to create Integral teachers, Integral students, and an Integral classroom."

I think that this was all very nicely said and provides a wide riverbed from which much gold can be sifted.  If you are currently in school, as I am, you likely see how these suggestions can be directly applied and integrated into your school experience.  If you are not presently in school I think it should be somewhat easy to see the ways in which the general ideas could be adapted to home life, work life, or even just reading a blog entry.

Now I want to look at a few of the ideas presented by Esbjörn-Hargens and amplify them slightly.

Reading: How often do we 'space out' when reading something that is 'required' or even when we are reading something we choose, but the inner narrator intrudes?  To what degree are we able to 'just do' what it is we are presently doing... whether that is reading, brushing our teeth, or talking to a cashier?

Presence: How often do we 'tune out' when someone else is talking and go off into our own daydream world?  When we are engaged, how often are we merely preparing our rebuttals and counter-arguments rather than truly listening to what is being said and allowing ourselves even a moment to just 'sit with it?'  Or better yet, a few more moments to examine the perspective, its contextual situation, its possible altitude, its emotional resonance, and possibly even its degree of quadratic inclusiveness or exclusiveness?

Shadow Work: How often do we get upset and try to pin our emotional state on someone else?  In honestly reflecting back on my own experience, I cannot think of an instance of great emotional turbulence in me that did not say more about me than about 'the cause.'  Sure there are jerks in the world and sure there are amazing people... but it is when I am having the strong emotional response to the person that I become aware that it is 'my stuff.'  For instance if someone is acting in a poor manner and I think 'boy they are sure acting like a jerk today' that is probably a (fairly) reasonable observation.  When someone is acting like a jerk and my internal dialogue runs a little more like this: 'Boy what fucking arrogant asshole!  Somebody needs to teach them a lesson.  I hope that they are acting like that around a few big ex-cons one day...'  Well in that case, my cognitive/emotional response says more about me than it does them (even if they are indeed acting arrogant etc.).  How about you?  Does this sound familiar or way off base?  What might either answer say about someone?

Witnessing: What is an interesting exercise is to see the degree to which I can just witness events and responses as they arise.  This may sound passive, but it is not necessarily so.  It is doing what I would 'normally' do, but with the full awareness of my doing it.  While much of my mindfulness and witnessing practice involves witnessing how often I am not mindful, in the moments when I am able to witness myself fully it is almost surreal.  There is me, the environment I am interacting with, my emotional responses, etc. all going on as they 'normally' do except that some part of me is aware that they are all arising in the spacious awareness... this part is not invested in or concerned with any particular outcome or result.  The irony is that as I am able to increasingly see the world from this vantage point I am able to become more involved not less so (more 'skillfully' as well).

Ok I have addressed the reading and listening... now what exactly is encounter?

For those readers old enough to remember the heyday of the 60's and early 70's, you may have participated in an encounter group or two or at least heard the phrase.  The idea of 'encounter' is that two people fully meet and interact from a space of mutual authenticity and regard for the other as fully human, fully being.  Facades are dropped in favor of real, spontaneous, communication of what is happening in the here-and-now.  Encounter groups are simply a group process that seeks to help people get in touch with their authentic emotions in real time and to learn how to fully 'be real' with others.  They can also be beneficial for pointing out areas of yourself of which you were previously unaware.  The Johari window is the classic illustration of this:

Regarding encounter groups in general Irvin Yalom (2005), the 800 pound gorilla of group theory, describes the encounter group as follows:

'What Is an Encounter Group?

"Encounter group" is a rough, inexact generic term that encompasses a great variety of forms and has many aliases: human relations groups, training groups, T-groups, sensitivity groups, personal growth groups, marathon groups, human potential groups, sensory awareness groups, basic encounter groups, and experiential groups.

            Although the nominal plumage is dazzling and diverse, all these experiential groups have several common elements. They range in size from eight to twenty members - large enough to encourage face-to-face interaction, yet small enough to permit all members to interact. The groups are time-limited and are often compressed into hours or days. They are referred to as "experiential groups" because they focus to a large extent on their own experience, that is, the here-and-now.  They transcend etiquette and encourage the doffing of traditional social facades; they value interpersonal honesty, exploration, confrontation, heightened emotional expressiveness, and self-disclosure.  The group goals are often vague: occasionally they stress merely the provision of an experience - joy, entertainment, being turned on - but more often they implicitly or explicitly strive for some change - in behavior, in attitudes, in values, in life style, in self-actualization, in one's relationship to others, to the environment, to one's own body. The participants are considered "seekers" and "normals," not "patients" or "clients"; the experience is considered not therapy but "growth."'(p. 526)

In my estimation, the altitude of the 'encounter group' has historically been mostly green with perhaps some dashes of teal.  These groups have been a tool used to focus on one's way of being, experiencing, and interacting.  They are also a technique that is very good at helping one to focus on process.

Okay, so how does all of this long rambling tie in together?  The answer is that I have been musing about what an Integral Encounter Group might look like.  So, if you will, come with me on a brief trip into the imaginal realm of the thought experiment. 

What if we were to take 10 adults all of whom had been engaged in an Integral Life Practice (ILP) for some time, had some fair degree of understanding of AQAL theory, Big Mind, etc. and were to put them into a room with no agenda or expectation except that they stay there for the allotted period of time?  What might such an integral encounter group look like?  How might its exchanges take place?

Imagine if you will Sally commenting to Jan: "Right now I am aware of my Controller being upset by the lack of structure in this group.  My Controller is reminding me that there are things I haven't done yet and could be doing instead right now."

Imagine Fred commenting to Larry: "Larry I am having an interesting experience right now and I think it may be coming from some sort of subtle energy you are putting out." 

Imagine Larry responding to Fred: "An emotional charge is really arising in me at the present moment while I am staring at you.  Right now I am 3-2-1ing it to see what that might be about for me."

Imagine Susie commenting: "I am sorry to break the long silence there everybody, but I am just very aware of my conflicting feelings about it.  On the one hand the aspect of me that is Non-Seeking is perfectly content to rest with what is, but the part of me that loves emotional engagement is just howling that every second of silence is a lost opportunity to get to know about you as people.  While I am aware that everyone here is communicating in many more ways than just words... this is just what is coming up for me right now."

Imagine Sally pointing out to Fred: "Are you aware of the way in which you appear to so very easily shift between the short, direct, no-bullshit approach and the very open and allowing approach?  I was very impressed by it, because it appears to me that it is a conscious choice and not merely a simple reaction.  Sometime I believe that I will never be able to effectively communicate in that way... I mean I want to... but I just can't do that type of thing."

Imagine Fred responding: "While it would be easy to just accept that as a complement, I mean part of me definitely wants to do just that, I would be playing into my own stuff if I did that and didn't encourage you to check out what might be coming up for you right now about your own sense of how you interact with others."

Overall what might an Integral Encounter Group look like if it was one where the participants were playing a game of 'no games' with all three bodies, in both speech and silence, conscious of developmental altitude and subtle context?  While it is likely that these individuals would already be (fairly) healthy in their understanding of their selves... how much might they grow if given the opportunity?  What would fully integral, 3-body, argument look like?

So that is my wondering.  What would a fully 'Integral' encounter group look like?  If anyone out there is aware of such a thing already existing and having been tried I would love to hear about the experience and/or results.

Mark

Readings:

Esbjörn-Hargens, S.  (2005?).  Integral Teacher, Integral Students, Integral Classroom:    
            Applying Integral Theory to Education.  Retrieved from:            
            http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/files/43/education/entry4566.aspx

Rogers, C.  (1970).  On encounter groups.  NY: Harper &     Row.

Yalom, I. D.  (2005).  The theory and practice of group psychotherapy, 5th ed. 

            NY: Basic Books.

 

I just saw this picture over at the Big Mind pod:

Wow.  That is about all I have to say. 

I would sure love to know the contextual background, but it is at least a start in the right direction.  Heck, I mean for the sheer number of debates we have been having so far, I submit that Genpo Roshi should host one where all of the candidates are required to field their answers from the voice chosen by him.

"Senator Clinton what does your Voice of Fear have to say about Iran?"

"Governor Huckabee what does your Fixer have to say about the increasing rates of obesity in America?"

"Mr. Giuliani please have the Voice of the Pro Choicer respond to what the Voice of the Pro Lifer just said."

At that point I wouldn't care too much who won.  Any of them could appoint Mugaku Sensei to the US Supreme Court, Musho Sensei to head up the State Department, and Stuart Davis to head up the FCC.

Ahh... to dream.... now off to the wonderous land of REM... the eye movement not the band.

Mark

How do you know if you are second tier?

Are you second tier by virtue of your simply existing? If so, then who or what is first tier?

Are you second tier by virtue of your familial links? If so, then are only first cousins second tier or are second cousins in as well? Maybe it is the 6 degrees of Ken Wilber that counts? Or maybe it is simply one's proximity to Boulder that counts?

Are you second tier by virtue of your power? If so, then do people have more or less second tierness at their disposal? Can this second tierness be accumulated? Can it be stolen? Can it be gotten at all? Can someone dole it out to you?

Are you second tier by virtue of your beliefs or the moral code you adhere to? If so, do others need to exactly mirror your beliefs and code or is mere approximation close enough to get in? Is second tier laid down in a book or other document that can be referenced for ultimate validation? Are you more second tier than those less educated, perfected, and wonderful than yourself? How do you relate to those who are so very obviously first tier?

Do you know your self to be second tier because of evidence? If so, with which data will you attempt to verify or falsify this claim? How was that data arrived at? Who was responsible for the generation of the theoretical construct? What unexamined assumptions are latent in the idea that second tier is a valid construct in the first place? With what degree of confidence will you assert your claim to being second tier?

Do you consider yourself second tier on account of your freely chosen associations? Is it a case of "I am hanging out with second tier so I must be second tier?" Isn't it just so lovely to be in a community of second tier people who love and support you? Isn't the unconditional acceptance you find there just so personally validating? Does second tier have to do with one's sense of self esteem? Is second tier really the happy peace train to Wellsville where all ignorance and greed is dissolved in a sea of caring awareness?

Do you believe yourself to be second tier because you are so recognized by a community of the adequate and authentic? If you are not adequate and authentic how would you even know if you met a community of the adequate and authentic? If you are capable of recognizing such a community then why do you need it? If you do not need such a community then why belong to it when you could be spending your precious seconds engaged in other activities that further your life purpose? Why tend to the weller than well when the sick and needy permeate the globe? When the presence of being can be felt equally in all places why choose the easy? Did choosing the easy path bring you here? Are there not places to go, things to do, people to help grow and develop?

Does the amazing lightness and spaciousness of being show up everywhere or do you need to be in a particular place or with particular people in order to "let your hair down?" Is the concept of second tier as obvious to you as the nose on your face? Is it a concept every bit as simple, convoluted, and reified by others as that of a chair or a calico cat? Do you know it when you see it? Do you see it when you know it? If Clare Graves had been aborted would it have ever existed? Would a different answer to the last question make second tier any more or less real? Is second tier simply the last holdout of your own defensiveness? Are you really better than others just because you happen to include a measly few more perspective? Is playing with the 64 box of crayons really any better than playing with the 5 box in the grand scheme of this glowing world of a billion trillion shades?

The screen is glowing. You are glowing. It flickers and you blink. You blink and it disappears. What need is there to complicate this utter simplicity with fractious concepts... and yet they arise and are useful in the human sphere. Your stomach grumbles. You go to lunch. Is this not so? What is the big deal?

If you are first tier you most likely hit a landmine or two in there somewhere. If you are second tier you are laughing. If you laughed just now you aren't second tier. If you just started howling now, you are. See how that works? Perfectly obvious from second tier, perfectly obtuse from first tier no? Or is this another trap? Do you even care what some nerd punches out at his or her keyboard?

I read about someone who read through Susanne Cook-Greuter's levels and said they could kind of figure out where they were at. So many levels were "yes of course" then finally the "probably" turned into "maybe... I have no clue." If you are really authentic you could probably read through descriptions and get a rough idea of where you would be at... of course it would be somewhere in 'second tier' land. If you were inauthentic you could probably also read through and give yourself a pretty good idea of where you were at... except it would be completely distorted by your own self-perceptions and defensiveness. You could always have SCG score your SCT, but then you have to rely on her ability to recognize a valid construct. Now maybe you have heard her speak and have concluded she is second tier... but then if you are accurate why take the test? etc. etc.

Second tier is neither rank, nor badge of honor, nor hip new trend, nor Scientology... it is simply a signifier that like many others appears to point toward an actual signified. Or then again maybe it is a rank (altitude), a badge of honor (result of great personal struggles), a hip new trend (just you wait till exit green pops!), and even a part of Scientology (just statistically speaking, someone there has got to be second tier right?).

Just some of my musings on second tier.

Mark
(Aspiring 3rd Degree Indigo-Black Belt Spiral Wizard Integral Ninja Master Esquire of The Utterly Ordinary Order of the Phoenix of No Rank, Sub Cabal of The Paradigm Shifters for a Better Not Two 'Morrow)

 

(October 16, 2007 CE)

Okay... it is official... Mark is jumping into the blogosphere. 

*cue appropriately dramatic music* 

I should probably begin with some sort of quote or pithy saying.  Given that I, like most members of my species, have a tendency to take my self too seriously I think I will start with the following quote:

"Hey ego!  Down in front you're blocking the show!"

I can see this whole blogging business getting way to self-absorbed, so I will try to focus on actual issues and keep the individual narration from getting (too) out of hand. 

A few points right up front:

1)         I tend to frame things from an integral perspective.  If you are not familiar with the works of the American author Ken Wilber you might be a bit confused.  Since you are currently perusing Zaadz, I am going to bet that you may have at least heard of the fellow.

2)         I may occasionally toss in some AQAL jargon.  When doing so, I will try to occasionally clarify my usage of the term, but will often rely on you the reader to have some Google savvy.

 3)        My interests over the years have run the gamut from Aardvarks to Zen and in my brain it is somehow all interrelated so if I start seeming crazy or tangential at times, I assure you I am merely addressing a topic in an integrated fashion... or at the worst just being a little circumstantial.

4)         People who take offense at anything consider this fair warning.  I view the world as an integrated and interrelated whole.  To me shit is just as sacred as anything else and the holy just as profane.  If you doubt me on this topic I encourage you to investigate Mumonkan case 21 or just Google "Kanshiketsu."  Better yet, just investigate the idea of Non-Duality and ask yourself just how seriously you are willing to take it.

5)         Most important of all... "The map is not the territory" as Alfred Korzybski would say.  That is if your are chronically addicted to the idea that your representation of reality is in fact synonymous with actual reality or you (wrongly) assume that others only see the world this way as well,  you will be picking pieces of menu out of your teeth regularly while reading my blog.

You must have at least 3 degrees of altitude to ride this ride... now on with the show!

Mark