Fourth Person Perspective

1st person .... my interior viewpoint

2nd person .... your interior viewpoint (to me, vice versa for you) for me to take a 2nd person perspective is to try to see from your interior viewpoint

3rd person .... viewpoint from an outside observer (someone that observes our interaction) for me to take a 3rd person perspective mean I "step outside" of both perspectives, does not include interiors.

4th person ....view of the perspecitval field .... sees interior and exteriors of each perspective and how they interact. Does not elevate one perspective over another. All have equal value (for some people that is zero value?)

5th person .... the capacity to hold multiple perspectives at a time. All perspectives are available to inform with some being valued more than others according to how appropriate they are to the needs of the moment.

(well, there it is, I gave it my best shot.)

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Actually, I have it printed and sitting on my nightstand. :)  I see what you mean about the stars at 4/5. That is very useful.  Bigger star self observing smaller star self as object in relation to multiple others.  gotcha.

Thanks, Timothy.

Clint: . . . the issue of subject view, and perspectival equations

Hey Clint,

I'm going to send you one of those emails but could you expand upon this here?

An issue that has bothered me for several years now is that there seems to be no clear definition of just what exactly constitutes "a perspective." The term seems to be used (by everybody, not just Integral) in far too broad and ambiguous a manner, more often than not referring to probably at least two or three, or possibly more, different things.

The subject has been a part of my own work as well, taking an Integral look at dramatic art and acting. This art, for example, would seem to be the embodiment of "stepping into someone else's shoes" – not only for an actor but for an author, a director, all other related artists and ultimately for an audience as well. The question extends to all fictional arts in general. So the question arises: how does someone do that?

In my early days of looking at the subject I made what turned out to be some fatal errors by following the common 1p, 2p, 3p model which, by itself, seemed to suggest that at least 3p was necessary construct and enjoy fiction. Lot's of history seems to support this as well. For example, an autonomous creative theatre, fictional literature, etc. would appear to pop into existence only in societies with a center of gravity at orange (e.g. ancient Greece, Europe past 16-1700). And I'm not alone, many scholars seem to follow this sort of model. But the whole thing falls apart when you simply take a look at children's pretend play, or at the fact that they can engage in fiction, movies, television. There’s plenty of evidence for increasing depth and a number of other developing factors, but the reality is that 3p or orange has absolutely no special claim on the fictional dramatic arts or anything similar. The reality seems simply to be that 3p, with it’s increased capacity, can now just assume a whole new appreciation. What was missing from the model was a couple of lines.

Fischer, for example, shows that a child can first see himself as an agent performing certain actions (e.g. pouring and drinking pretend tea) and then can begin to treat an object as an agent - e.g. a doll as a person (or, Piaget, a shell is a cat). Quickly, these object/agents can then have relationships and roles - e.g. this doll is a patient, the other the doctor. This can grow more complex too: the doctor is also the patient's father and the child can take on all three various roles simultaneously. Each role is some kind of "a perspective" and the complexity is no small cognitive feat either. But at the same time, I do think it is perfectly safe to say that these role perspectives are still seen from a heavily 1p or 1p-centric perspective. So . . . what are we talking about when we talk about taking perspectives?

There's perspectives on the self (i.e. SC-G), then there is something referring to more general cognitive capacity (i.e. more like what you are talking about), then there are other things more related to what I am looking at which I'll mention in a minute.

Another type of perspective that gets thrown in all the time is spatial perspective, which, at the very least, we have to question how far spatial perspective abilities can be equated with all of these other kinds of things. This one is ultimately so out of left field in relation to some of the other lines involved in "perspective taking" by various definitions that it leads one (or at least me) to consider whether or not there is not some type of perspective definition for every line in the psychograph.

My own work has revealed, however, about three crucial things that need to be included, or at least accounted for, in studying and defining what we mean by "perspectives."

1.) The first was introduced in this current issue (Vol. 3, No. 3) of JITP. Affective prosody is how we both express and identify emotions in others, along with numerous other things. This is an important factor to consider becasue very often people refer to the capacity for "empathy" as one of taking perspectives. Sometimes this is taken too far, just as, for example, spatial perspectival ability has been overextended. We can both recognize and to some extent feel the emotions of others from very early ages. We also mimic them and begin to assume them as our own, or can at least understand perfectly what they mean. All of this develops both on it's own and within the wider cognitive expanse, but the main point is that it is a factor that needs to be accounte for in many definitions of perspective taking - or any "complete" definition of a "perspective" (if such a thing is possible). But more is involved in this than just emotions. Many mental and psychological factors are involved as well. Which leads to:

2.) Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind, or "mind-reading" is our ability to accurately understand what other people (or other sentient beings) are thinking, along with a number of specifics like immediate beliefs.

For example:

Amanda believes that if she asks a question via this message board she will recieve an adequate answer from others members of the community.

Clint believes that when he posts his response Amanda and others will find it interesting.

There's all kinds of "mind-reading" going on in just those two simple realities and its highly complex as well. But it gets even more complex in more social situations. If this capcity is impaired -and it appears to be about the chief impairment in autism -none of that makes sense. I haven't seen anything in the Integral literature yet that specificially treats Theory of Mind. But my general assessment is that including and accounting for all of the relavent study and research into it is very important for any Integral perspectival model, and for sorting a lot of things out.

3.) The propositional imagination. This is an article that I am currently working on. Taken almost entirely for granted across the board in all academic study, much recent evidence suggests that the propositional imagination (often just refered to as "the imagination") is a distinct capacity, that emerges in human being by about 18months to two years of age. It is the capacity which underlies pretending, Theory of Mind and so many other human cognitive skills we would be unrecognizable without it. It is also turning out to be the chief impairment in autism. It is a mental "workspace" in which we can, well, imagine things, various propositions. Even more so in this context it is exactly the capacity that allows us to "step out" of our own immediate sensori-based cognitive/consciousness shoes and propositionally "into" something else -whether it be a person, a situation, another time and place. It is, in other words, the very basis of constructing what I think we most often are referring to as perspectives. Perspectives other than my own. If impaired, again, one is left in the truly first person world of autism, where, when most severe, everyone else is perceived as just as another object in my environment.

The main point, I think that all of these have a great deal to contribute to our emerging model and notion of perspectives. What they are, how they are, how they develop, what is developing, and often times, what we or anyone else is even talking about. Fleshing the whole thing out, but in some instance, I do also feel that we may discover that what (again, sometimes) we might be mistaking for complex 4p, 5p, etc. which we equate with higher stages is just Theory of Mind potentials that are more than adequately present at, say, age 4 or 5. I do know that at various times questions have come up about this in online forums and other places and I think in this is the answer.

Anyway, I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has about these subjects too. I don't have any definitive model yet or anything, I just know that these are factors we have to eventually take into account, and, of course, integrate.

Tim