Submitted by barbi hammond on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 05:31
As a follow-up to my previous post on "strategic communication" via blogging, I felt that a certain "balancing of the books" is in order by re-introducing the concept of oceanic or circular thinking.
The following comment thread got buried within a mammoth of a post which I won't bore everyone with yet again. It can be found in full in the following thread:
http://integrallife.com/member/barbi-hammond/blog/my-critique-zeitgeist-addendum-and-question-about-obama-postmodern-democra#comment-17818
And while it's not my intent to "pick on" Mark DuBois personally -- at present, there aren't many other people to "pick on" around here so making him as good a "target" or scapegoat for critique as any other.
More to the point, I'd have to take an issue with his analysis of my being overly "feminine" or "masculine" in type or in the idea of using oceanic thinking as a means to an end for rationality (e.g., "strategic communication").
Critique of Barbi
Posted October 26th, 2008 by Mark DuBois
Hello Barbi,
I've been reading a few of your posts these past few weeks as I'm trying to get a better sense of who you are.
Initially, you appeared to me as both very insightful but also having "flakiness". I say this not in a mean way; I say it because I have these attributes in myself as well. When I start to focus on something really tangible like web programming, the flakiness leaves and very rational methodology returns. However, I need the flakiness periodically to get my orientation on where I want to focus my rationality.
I really enjoy your posts, insights and research but suggest that they are too long.
You are a very powerful voice but diffuse it with quantity; you can say more with less...
Mark
Was this Comment Useful?
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
flaky-ness/quantity
Posted October 26th, 2008 by barbi hammond in response to Critique of Barbi
Hello Mark,
I appreciate your constructive criticism. If you could tell me what you mean by "flaky" and give me a concrete example of "flaky-ness" in my writing, I would have a better idea of knowing what to do about it.
I've had a lifelong problem with focus/disorganization/pyramidal thinking (an impairment of the executive function)?Usually, I have an impression of something but don't have a clear idea as to what I'm trying to say until I put it down in words. It eventually works itself out over the course of time. Sometimes, it does not. Resulting often in extraneous, irrelevent, or redundant information as I try to sort through all the data to gain a better focus as I continue to type. I think my methodology is better described as circular rather than pyramidal vision or triangular/perspectival. Resulting often chain-logic or oceanic thinking via moving periodically along a constellation of imagery or impressions. A more primitive form of reasoning, perhaps--often very "pointless" (a circle is not a "point," after all...but circular). Yet sometimes beneficial, sometimes pointless. I apologize for the wordiness yet seemed to be strapped to this form of reasoning if I ever want to get a word out.
Was this Comment Useful?
Currently, there are 0 votes.
Marriage of feminine with masculine
Posted October 26th, 2008 by Mark DuBois in response to flaky-ness/quantity
You describe what I meant by "flaky-ness" best in your second paragraph. "Resulting often in extraneous, irrelevent, or redundant information as I try to sort through all the data to gain a better focus as I continue to type."
However, your internal processing is not primitive, it is exceptionally advanced. Your ability allows you to see instantly into the nature or essence of whatever you choose to look at. The problem lies sometimes in conveying it into the written form what you are internally processing.
If I may, I would like to suggest that you continue to write down your thoughts as you currently do in a separate text editor. Let all your imagery, impressions, circular thinking and all the creative impulses come through in the temporary editor.
After you "feel" you've gotten them all, start a 2nd revision that lets your very well developed rational side kick in. Let it re-structure your content, fill in any references you might have, etc. Your rational side will make it shorter, more coherent and most importantly, compliment and amplify your original free flowing voice.
When that revision meets both domains inside you, then post it. You don't need to change anything inside yourself, just a slight change in your post methodology.
Stated differently, marry your feminine with your masculine; the masculine is subordinate to the feminine...
Was this Comment Useful?
Currently, there are 0 votes.
What "Type" am Ima Pirate???
Posted January 12th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to Marriage of feminine with masculine
I finally have a copy of Integral Spirituality. Yay for me!
I think I 'get' the gist of what you're saying now that I'm on page 26 of Integral Spirituality. And while I do agree with much of your analysis (which I found to be very useful and informative), I should point out a few discrepancies I've noticed between theoretical vs. subjective experience with respect to gender identity and Carol Gilligan.
As I understand it thus far, "types" are those masculine and feminine principles that exist in each person (such as agency, a masculine principle and communion, a feminine principle). Alternatively, these masculine and feminine symbols are reflected in two basic architectural designs: the exterior phallus (or column) and the interior self-contained uterine cave or womb. Needless to say, caves are nocturnal, enclosed, and natural and are therefore more "primordial" than columnal phallic structures in Ancient Greece or Rome. What all this has to do with your analysis will have to be sorted through as I'm typing to work itself out perhaps the next go-round.
That's basically my methodology for now: going around. But returning briefly to Carol Gilligan, I understand that generally speaking, boys like to play a game of "pirates" while girls like to play a game of "neighbors" instead. So I'm curious to know what type am Ima Pirate??
"Piracy" and "agency" are games that I am totally familiar with so can better identify with those games because I am, after all, Ima Pirate. Wheras "Neighbors" and "communion" are games that I rarely, if ever, engage in.
And I must agree that after trying to re-read my original post (and only getting half-way through before "nodding off,") your observation of "flaky-ness" is a valid point. The post as a whole strikes me as a form of reasoning called oceanic thinking--or thinking from the psyche or soul rather than from the more rational and more goal-oriented tasks of mentality or rational thinking. Nonetheless, as Gebser notes, oceanic thinking, in spite of its endless digressions or flights from one related image or sound to the next, eventually does work its way around so as to circumscribe or circumnavigate the world through a constellation of psychic imagery. So in that sense, oceanic thinking is far more intact than the fragmentary abstractions of rationality. These rationalized particles are merely the fragments or rubble of what was once a vital flux of images and thoughts that are as inexhaustible and as vast as the deep blue sea. Here is an example of oceanic thinking:
In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and God was the logos. The same (the logos) was in the beginning with God.
A: beginning
B: logos
B: logos
C: God
C: God
B: logos
B: same
A: beginning
Here we again notice the circular movement of polarizing thought in the series AB/BC/CB/BA. The silent beginning forms a pole to the speaker, God, and from there a reversed return to the silent pole. It is a process of self-complementation, and the central concept--here circumscribed rather than described--is "God."
Because of its vastness and inexhaustibility, it is possible to go around and around forever and never breaking out of mythical enclosure. However, I would still recommend it every now and then as a post methodology to counter the reductionism and concern for quantity over quality that exists in rationalization:
In oceanic thought there is still a preponderance of the relegere, or "careful attention" characteristic of the mythical structure; it is a thinking process that still shows "re-gard," as is careful to neglect nothing so as not to disturb the balance by mere positing or postulation. This is accomplished in mythical relegio by a constant regard for the respective complimentary pole. There is even an echo of the magic moment in the auditory aspects, that is, in the rhythm and musicality of the expressive language, as well as in the endeavor to uphold a unification which in a manner corresponding to myth occurs through complementation.
Oceanic thinking is the transitional phase between mythical and rational thinking prior to discursive thought breaking down to meaningless abstractions and immoderate and hair-splitting rationalization. Which is nothing but the atomization and "cutting off" of things..
There is a sense of pointlessness, indecisiveness, circularity, ambiguity and, hence, illogicality that pervades the original post. This is to be expected at times considering my lack of preparedness beforehand and habit of "making things up" as I go along. By coincidence, many of these characteristics are associated with female behavior in their wishy-washy temperaments and flights of thought.
The fact that oceanic and mythical reasoning are cyclical and lunar in nature reveals how closely this form of reasoning is nocturnal and dream-like, and tied to the feminine. In additon, the fact that tidal waves are created by the gravitational pull of the moon upon the waves makes is also doubly-feminine. Oceanic thinking therefore follows a natural temporicity which, unlike the metronome or conceptual or clock time, is a natural form of time that occurs throughout all of nature in the form of seasons, constellations, cycles, dreams, night and day, and many other natural periodicities. It is this that gives this particular phenomenon its feminine quality or "stamp." Therefore, unlike rational thought, which has a masculine "stamp," is solar, and is externally-oriented to some object, goal, position, or perspective, oceanic thinking is non-goal oriented, unperspectival, and spaceless yet in perpetual movement or flow due to the natural temporicity that it follows..
And why so, you might ask?
I will confine my response to one facet of oceanic thinking, that of being "pointless" and "non-goal oriented."
1. To have a "goal," there must first be thinking subject and a plan, objective, a strategy, a purpose, or something that is otherwise known as a "point." Without an objective or "point," the soul simply vascillates endlessly between complimentary poles within a natural temporicity. Movement itself is fundamentally an aspect of time and can occur without space. When time occurs without space, it is a form of time known as natural temporicity, which creates rotation or a circular pattern as you see in the planetary orbits and stars. Needless to say, a circle has no point and therefore, no objective or "purpose" beyond providing a two-dimensional plane or disc-like surface on which to circumnavigate through the journey of life.
These two surfaces are the canopy sky above and the ground on which we stand. The ground, in turn, (and everything on it, including person that is standing on it) is a mirror-reflection of the stars, moon, sun, and the heavens above--all of which, sky and ground, yin and yang, sun and moon, soul and Divinity, and countless other polar complimentarities--are rotating endlessly and exist as a polar complimentarity to each other and reflect each other in a mirror-like fashion. In oceanic thinking, the ground becomes the vast sea instead which is a mirror-reflection of the canopy sky above. Depending on time of day, reflecting the blue sky at day and the stars and moon at night on the watery surface.
Thus, both mythical and oceanic thinking are similar in that they follow along a constellation of patterns or imagery that exist on a circle within a natural temporicity. If circular, the imagery or event is bound to happen again and again as before and before. And what is the "point," after all, in planning a goal of a "period" or "menstration" if it is bound to happen every month? Or in planning a goal of "Winter" when it happens every December?
Points do exist on other dimensions, such as the first and the third. In one dimensional, for example, reasoning is pre-rational and magical, which is point-like and analogous. Because of the point-like quality of both one-dimensional magic and three-dimensional mental-rational, they are related in the sense that they are both externally-oriented to certain objects or "points.". In magic, the point is is not a spatial "location" (what with neither space NOR time in one-dimensional magic) but rather an effort to gain mastery over nature through magic so as to no longer be overwhelmed by nature or be dispersed out among it. In the mental-rational structure, the object is to gain mastery over the third dimension, depth-space, through machination or mechanization of powers that were once "magic" (incidentally, the root word of "machine" is "magic," which shows how closely first and third dimension are related and fixated upon issues of power and control).
Oceanic thinking is closer to the mythic structure of consciousness which is two dimensional and circular. In light of your assessment of the posts being "too long" (and assuming that a circle could have any "point" at all), my suggestion is that the whole "point" of creating this never-ending flux of images and words was possibly to arrive at full circle so as to bring this whole nauseating sea voyage to some kind of "finality" or closure. But it is never a true "closure" because the end point leads back to the beginning point, which compels Ima Pirate to keep going on and on and on around in a circle forever and ever as the rowers keep on rowing and showing no signs that they are ever slowing..
In any event, it is never "forward movement" or "closure": only a mythical enclosure, perhaps--and thus a self-contained, two-dimensional youniverse comprised of two basic surfaces: the sky above and the bottomless sea. And is not, after all, the deep blue sea the polar complimentary and mirror-reflection of the blue sky above? If so, the nocturnal sea becomes a mirror-like reflection for a constellation of images and thoughts rotating endlessly under a starry and moonlit sky in a vast sea of unrelated, half-baked, and often, arational and irrational thoughts.
I also didn't get the following statement:
Stated differently, marry your feminine with your masculine; the masculine is subordinate to the feminine...
I take it that by "marry," you mean "integrate" the masculine with the feminine type. Or integrate the feminine with the masculine type. Not sure which one that you mean. I have lifelong gender identity issues which is fairly common among those who are diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. Incidentally, Asperger is a form of autism which is theorized to be a manifestation of an "overly male brain," whatever that means. Without a blood analysis to measure the testosterone or hormone levels in the brain, however, I have no idea as to "type" I most closely resemble on the UR quadrant.
I would say that the masculinity is expressed moreso in my verticality of growth or agency and piracy than with testosterone levels or hormones, if muscular physique or lack thereof is any indication of low testosterone levels. Whatever the case, I would have to take issue with the notion that I am more "feminine" than most females simply because I am trying out oceanic thinking as a thought experiment. Also for the fact that most girls avoid me for being "weird." I attribute that to Asperger and odd interests combined with underdeveloped feminine principles such as that of communion, human bonding, or conformity. But based on your analysis, I seem to have the opposite sick boy/sick girl thing of underdeveloped masculinity or an "imbalance" between the masculine and the feminine whereby
a) the masculine is subordinate to the feminine?
b) the masculine should be subordinate to the feminine?
or
c) that the masculine is being excessively subordinated to the feminine (or vice-versa)?
I appreciate the vote of confidence on my internal processing, btw. One last "point":
However, I need the flakiness periodically to get my orientation on where I want to focus my rationality.
While your point of "flaky-ness" and never-ending posts is something that I find very useful, I do not consider myself to have any defects or imbalances in the area of logic or rational thinking. Nor between masculine or feminine principles with the possible exception of being deficient in the feminine because of Asperger. However, I would take issue with the idea that I am somehow deficient in rationality or logic.. Or am lacking in masculine principles.. Without the ability to think rationally, I wouldn't have won the highest award in both of my majors (one of them Philosophy).
That aside, your observation of my "flaky-ness" refers to a style of reasoning that is called oceanic thought and parodoxical thinking. I don't engage in oceanic thought all the time but feel that it is appropriate at times and can be very insightful in many situations where logic and mentality have no true applicability. Namely, in the psychic realm of dreams or in the realm of the soul. Also, in poetry, music, and art. There is a way to utilize the psyche beneficially without having to resort to pre-trans fallacy or to re-immersion into previous structures such as amber. Thus, to cut off the psyche for the sake of rationality is to pay no "re-gard" to the soul whatsoever. As such, "flaky-ness" or oceanic thought serves a vital function beyond merely acting as a means to an end for rationality.
As an orienting tool, I should also point out that oceanic thinking has no"orientation" (direction) so you might want to avoid that "route." Anything that is circular in movement has no directionality beyond, perhaps, left and right or up and down circularity. If the movement is circular, those "directions" do not count because they merely circumscribe--not penetrate--depth space to access a "different" point in space beyond the mere surfaces to reach the third dimension. Which is the dimension of rationality and spatiality and thus can never be achieved temporically via circumnavigation.
Directed or discursive thinking, on the other hand, differs from mere rationality in that Gebser defines it as an efficient or positive phase of the mental structure of consciousness. In directed or discursive thinking, the emphasis is more upon "directionality" than that of "rationality." However, being fully rational as well, it can also penetrate depth-space to break the confines of mythical enclosure. Rationality, on the other hand, is the deficient and negative phase of the mental-rational structure of consciousness that results in immoderate hair-splitting rationalization and atomization of thought. I would suggest discursive or directed thinking as a replacement to immoderate, hair-splitting rationalization. It provides the "right" direction that you need for "forward movement" along with the rationality you need for sensibility in addition to the quality, while avoiding the extreme atomization of hair-splitting, overconcern for quantity over quality (whether via reduction or agglomeration or quantification), immoderate rationalization--and the pitfalls of oceanic thinking, which is never-ending, illogical, and circular.
But returning full circle, oceanic thought is all-encompassing. Additionally, oceanic thinking is perpetual in flux. As in the case of the vast sea, which is inexhaustible in scope, oceanic thinking is inexhaustible until the point of the reader's point of exhaustion. I, on the other hand, am like the EverReady or Duracell rabbit that just keeps on going and going forever until the point of everyone's exhaust.
