Communication and the Integral Knife

When I look at the quadrants and the validity claims of each quadrant I see one way in particular that the clarity of my communicatins can be enhanced. Seeing the validity claims gives me a clear understanding of one of my motives in communication. Seeing the means by which we can accurately validate in each quadrant helps me better serve that motive. Let me explain with an example.

I will start with the example of "hearing" (or reading, or seeing, or any other mode of communication) from somebody for the first time. Because, this is where one of the most fundamental of our communication motives is most visible. This is where we determine whether or not we wish to "recieve" communications from someone.

And, how do I determine whether or not someone is worth "listening" to? I seek to determine the truthfulness of the source.(UL) After all, none of us wants to be fooled by someone else. We often simply go by how we "feel" about someone in determing if they are sincere. This method is great if we clearly understand why we feel what we feel. (this is a matter of determining our own truthfulness with ourself) But, even if I choose to proceed I will do so with a certain caution. There is a healthy degree of skepticism. By being validated through other means a person can establish trustworthiness in my eyes. I can also look at the integrity of what I am being told.

To further validate if someone is sincere and trustworthy I check what they say against the facts. I look to see for myself if what they are saying is the truth.(UR) Of course, whether or not this is an accurate gauge of their truthfulness will depend on my own ability to see the truth. I can be more objective in checking it out by testing their proposition, seeing if what they say corresponds with what I or someone else I do trust sees to be the truth, or I can "do the math", so to speak, to see if what they are representing is valid. (it depends on what I am being "told" as to which method or what other objective method may be most appropriate)

I can take this one step further by looking to see if what is being "said" is a functional fit.(LR) How does what they are "talking" about mesh with our social realitity, does it provide for structural fitness, is it socially useful and/or applicable.

Finally, if I choose to pursue this attempt to validate to its fullest extent, I will look to see the justness of what I am being told.(LL) Is it in accord with our mutual understanding? How well does it fit into the culture in which it is presented? Is what is being presented contributing in a positive or constructive manner according to the culture's values?

Now, this is what I, as a potential receiver of communication, am attempting to do. The more accurate I am at accomplishing this task and the better I become at see what I am doing the clearer I am going to be on my end of the communication. And, applying this truthfulness test to myself as well will go a long ways in clearing the ground for healthy communications on my part.

(there's one more plus for usefulness: usefulness 2, not useful 0)

--

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

I think I can best answer you questions by elaborating on my mother-in-law example. As I currently understand and experience higher orders of consciousness, I find that I can empathize more completely with others. When dealing with my mother-in-law, I "knew" I was coming from the higher, or more inclusive, perspective. However, I was always frustrated by my inability to convince her of the "rightness" of my perspective. What I finally learned was that by entering into my own awareness of amber (which of course I had experienced during a phase of cognitive/value development), I was able to "tap into" her worldview...I could feel it and see it...and from a more inclusive cognitive map I could use language she identified with and show her how her worldview could become more inclusive (like the Christ she worshipped). 

I think we should never underestimate the power of our language to create our world(view). Wittgenstein was correct in his recognition of how our language creates pictures for us, pictures that create our "reality". Our language not only creates our meaning, but also our structure. Once we realize this, and we are cognitively able to hold this basic truth, we can become more flexible in our interactions with others. This is not done in a manipulative way, but in a way that hopefully promotes a resonance for those involved in any communication dealing with views and values. 

In my interactions with my mother-in-law, I was most surprised by how much I learned from her perspectives. My agenda (convincing her of the "rightness" of my position) faded as I gained a bit deeper understanding of her worldview. As I resonated with her cognitive/value line, and her "lot in life", I understood why she believed the way she did. This simple lesson, of stepping into another's shoes, is to me the cornerstone of truly Integral communication.  

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for contemplating what I wrote about.  The intuitive hit you experienced is encouragment for my sometimes pensive view of my ability to construct words in response to ideas.  So, double thanks!  In response to your reflections,  ---

1.  IT is about mapping reality as it is, while simultaneously allowing for what it becomes.  At the physical experience, we strive for 'something', be it getting better at chess, or finding a cure for XDR-TB (extremely drug resistant TB), or discerning a higher consciousness, and being able to express it and map it for others to experience.  So my thought is that it is only "logical" that some people interested in IT are not only learning about IT, they are learning it well enough to open doors that weren't visible before.

1 & 2 combined ---  I imagined Newton sitting under the tree.  He's been pondering for quite a bit, what the map of reality at the time was.  There was something though, that he focussed on, that his intuitive guidance and questioning intellect propelled him to continue thinking about.  So, 1) he thought through what existed, 2) he knew there was something.... more, else, different, other...., 3) he thought through what that could be and in order to do so, he needed to discard previous held beliefs, ideas, etc., 4) conditions allowed for spontaneous assistance (an apple dropped).........

No right or wrong.  Observation.  Contemplation.  Consideration.  Necessity.  Procreation. Embodiment. Duplication. Addition to map.  New map.

2.  Learn the system.  Use it well (that would be the best use of it, yes?).  Systems are products of their time.  Ok. Sometimes ahead of their time.  Still, systems encompass what exists and as what exists becomes updated or outdated, so to does the system.  Find what's important.  Hold onto what's important.  Stay attached if you want.  There's so many ways that it's not right or wrong .  Only depends what you want to do.

A system needs rigidity to maintain boundaries for its existence.  However, a self-fulfilling system allows for it's own restructuring, to enable it's existence, in part or perhaps in totality, to remain existent.  Do we need to discard anything to attain a higher level of consciousness?

3.  I would change the wording to be like this:

If we are fully in accord with the quadrants as they arise they will naturally be expressed AS us.  EFFORT IS REQUIRED.

Heck, Newton went to relax under that tree.  But it wasn't as though he hadn't tirelessly before or after been searching for how to express what he was guided to discover!!

Jerry,

Yes, I also like Bohm's notion.  It's essentially "mindfulness," but his way of expressing it is illuminating.  And AQAL, as a means of "touching base" with our many native perspectives and their associated modes of discourse, validity claims, etc, adds helpful granularity to the territory in which we deploy our mindfulness...  I will have more to say about Bohm's approach in the "Part 2" blog I will be posting soon.

Looking forward to how the discussion you've initiated continues to unfold...

Best wishes,

B.