.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 3 members found this useful.
The Spiritually Narcissistic Self 2.0
Posted December 9th, 2008 by Michael McAlister
Andrew Cohen makes some interesting points in his blog entry
today.
Whenever I contemplate the mystery of consciousness and how it evolves within and through us, I am always struck by the same thing: How easy it is to see a glorious future in those moments when we are spiritually awake, when our awareness is enlightened—and how difficult it is to see that glory when it is not.
This is a fascinating take on enlightened awareness; one that I can agree with in many respects. And yet I also find myself interested in the idea that enlightened awareness helps individuals to “see a glorious future”. This isn’t exactly the way I’ve watched things unfold in either my own practice over the years or in the practice of my students.
From an enlightened perspective, none of us sees either past or future as anything other than objects of mind. Nor does any of us see any kind of evaluation as either glorious, or horrible, or in between. Instead we see that as an enlightened awareness breaks through these various constructs of the mind, there is a Divine opportunity to disidentify with whatever we may have experienced in the past as well as what we might hope to experience in the future. An authentic awakening show us that Spirit intentionally meets itself through us in every single moment. Knowing this frees us from the bondage of time. But while we might recognize the Eternal we don’t stop here. We can’t. This meeting inspires us to freely offer a depth and a breadth of context as we contribute consciously to all activity.
Perhaps Andrew and I are saying similar things on this point:
In the early stages of our own spiritual development, we are dependent upon the experience of euphoric states to be able to see, feel, and know that these higher potentials really do exist. The bliss and ecstasy of those states temporarily breaks the deep and often unconscious shackles of postmodernity: nihilism, cynicism, narcissism, and materialism. It frees our awareness to expand in all directions, to embrace not only the outer limits but also the innermost core of our larger body, the entire Kosmos.
And these state experiences are a critical component to our climb up the Mountain of Spirit. My concern is that his words may imply that hungry egos can short-cut the process of Awakening in order to serve its own wants and desires for evolutionary emergence:
until those higher potentials have become a permanent attainment, our ability to see the future that we want to create will always depend upon the experience of spiritual intoxication.
But what will be doing the attaining beyond the spiritual intoxication? An ego by another name? What exactly keeps the primary structures of ego from reabsorbing what it can easily cling to as some better, more complete, more enlightened, more evolved version of itself? A spiritually narcissistic Self 2.0 that bypasses the need to first see the view from the summit of the Mountain of Spirit and then embody the utterly devastating implications of that view defines the delusion from which we seek to free ourselves an others.
Seeing that glory will no longer be dependent upon the presence of a higher state—because we will already be there.
Maybe he’s right. Maybe not. Regardless, all of us on the Path will do well to help each other uncover the spacious mystery we call the Now. From here our task is to act consciously from the spaciousness of this moment, which in turn, helps all of us co-create a future that supports the continual unfolding of this process.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
no wimps
Posted December 9th, 2008 by Michael McAlister in response to [Comment Deleted]Anne,
I am also a fan of the Guru and Pandit dialogs. For that matter, I believe in much of what Ken and Andrew are saying a lot of the time, and continue to be impressed with much of what they both teach in their own ways. I especially appreciate, as you point out, the whole "no wimps allowed" notion. This serves the Teaching marvelously as long as it doesn't become an attachment.
My concerns are pedagogical, and to be fair, he and I have talked about it before. Awakening, as both Andrew and Ken always point out, isn't about feeling good. It's about being able to have enough space around the feeling that we don't get caught by it. We can fully experience whatever we need to experience, but we are free of it. This allows for us to be "in the world," as Christ has said, "but not of it." From here, and only here, can we engage our experience from a Realized place; a place where we go beyond name and form only to reinhabit our bodies consciously as a continual dance of what is good, true, and beautiful. Ego has a place here, as does mind, but neither one can ever lay claim to being the CEO of our experience any longer no matter how "authentic" or "upgraded" either one thinks it is. I think Andrew's approach to teaching can enhance rather than untangle this subtle clinging if practitioners aren't very conscious of what it is, and who it is, that is doing the spiritual work.
Bows,
Michael
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
minus one to zero to plus one
Posted December 10th, 2008 by David MarshallMichael, I think you have some really good points. However, I think Andrew makes the same ones.
Andrew teaches people to go from what he calls "minus one" (the ego) to "zero" (the Ground of Being or Awakening) and then to "plus one" (authentic self or deeper psychic or psychic being). He talks about that here. Here is a quote from that article:
"So the goal in evolutionary enlightenment is for the individual, through the power of conscious choice, to shift his or her fundamental locus of identification from the ego to the evolutionary impulse or authentic self. And the only way for that to happen is to take the heroic journey from minus one to zero to plus one; from a negative relationship to life, to no relationship to life, to a positive relationship to life; from inertia to emptiness to the evolutionary impulse; from ego to no self to the authentic self."
-1 to 0 to +1
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Three clean steps?
Posted December 10th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to minus one to zero to plus oneHi David,
Forgive me for stepping into the conversation. I don't mean to interupt the continuity. But, I have a question about Adrew's teaching. I am somewhat familiar with it but I have not studied or practiced directly with him or his group.I don't know if you have or not, so you may or may not know the answer to my question and that is fine if you do not.
Do you know if this process of going from minus one, to zero, to plus one is a "clean" three step process? The first step of course there is no question about, recognizing the negative relationship to life as ego for what it is. Step two is also not difficult to see as a whole or complete step, realiziation of the essential emptiness of reality. But, step three is to become the Authentic Self. I am pretty sure I know the answer but I have to ask, does Andrew teach that this is as being a "single step"? That is,on emerging from zero is there automatically the whole and comlete plus one?
Thanks,
Jerry--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
states and stages
Posted December 10th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to Three clean steps?Hi, Jerry. I think it's safe to say that it's anything but a "clean" process. I mean, it could be, I suppose, theoretically, but it tends to be messy.
That is, on emerging from zero is there automatically the whole and complete plus one?
Not necessarily. In fact, usually there isn't. It is possible to go to zero at any stage of development, including Red, Amber, Orange, etc. And Andrew is basically teaching Indigo as plus one. Most people, including most teachers, are not coming out of zero as Indigo. However, nearly all of them claim that they are plus one! :)
Ken Wilber, for example, has said that he asked Genpo Roshi what structure the Zen masters he knew in Japan were using, and Genpo answered that they were all Amber. Ken makes the distinction between horizontal enlightenment and vertical enlightenment, horizontal meaning zero and vertical meaning being one with all the structures that have emerged.
So, if you ask me, it depends on the culture a person is operating in as well as their structure whether they can be considered plus one--if the culture is Red, for example, Amber is plus one for sure. But most of us wouldn't consider Amber plus one in the United States as Amber doesn't, for one thing, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very much. Also, of course, someone who came out of zero into Amber in the U.S. wouldn't be at one with all the structures that have emerged there.
But Andrew stresses transpersonal action, which is way above the cultural COG and how people are conditioned, so it is usually anything but a clean step. It takes time and hard work to build that structure.
~David
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
more on Authentic Self and 2.0
Posted December 10th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to states and stagesDavid,
Thanks for the prompt reply. I pretty well knew the answer but, since you seemed inclined to speak on behalf of Andrew's teaching here I figured you were in a better position to confirm that his teaching does reflect the integral view of development.
Now that there is clarity on that point I would like to add that I agree with Michael's concern that reading some of Adrew's writings (especially in a causal way) can be misleading. When people hear about the "Authentic Self" it is very easy for the ego to slip into "spiritual" mode and do it's usual egoic thing; set up a goal and formulate a plan to "become" an "Authentic Self". When this is the case then the outcome is sure to be more akin to what Michael has humorously called "Narcissistic Self 2.0" It is for this reason that his warnings seem valid.
There is little clarity and virtually no agreement on "How" these structures in consciousness are "built" but we can be sure of one thing. It is not up to the ego to do so nor can the ego do so; since the ego (as Andrew and most spiritual teachers use the term) has no existence apart from conceptual thought.
Beyond the fact that reference to an Authentic Self can lead one to believe that enlightement is the discovery of a "bigger and better me" my main concern with Andrews teachings, and in some respect Ken's viewpoint, is that they do little to acknowledge the genuineness of relationship (authenticity) that is possible at any level of development. While it is good and honest that people are informed about the value and possibility of continual evolution of human consciousness it is best and most skillful, imho, to assist them to live the Truth in accordance with their current cognitive capacity.
How do you see this?
Jerry
--------------
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
evolution, authentic self, etc.
Posted December 10th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to more on Authentic Self and 2.0Hi Jerry,
When people hear about the "Authentic Self" it is very easy for the ego to slip into "spiritual" mode and do it's usual egoic thing; set up a goal and formulate a plan to "become" an "Authentic Self". When this is the case then the outcome is sure to be more akin to what Michael has humorously called "Narcissistic Self 2.0"
Yes, I'm sure that can happen. But of course we could say the same thing about any teaching on the relative side of the street, that people will just fake it or turn it into an ego trip. It could just as easily happen with "right view," "right action," etc. But even if it does, by and large it will probably be better than what was happening before. Narcissistic Self 2.0 is better than Narcissistic Self 1.0, right? Someone with the intention to be caring and compassionate is likely to be more caring and compassionate than someone who doesn't have such an intention.
My main concern with Andrews teachings, and in some respect Ken's viewpoint, is that they do little to acknowledge the genuineness of relationship (authenticity) that is possible at any level of development.
I think there is something to what you are saying here, but if we consider Carol Gilligan's moral stages, for example--selfish, care, universal care, integrated--I think we can see that authenticity goes up with each level. That's not to say that the selfish person couldn't ever act with authenticity; I think they can--and Ken made that point once in a guru and pandit and Andrew acknowedged it--but the person at Gilligan's selfish level will tend to be . . . selfish! And we're defining authenticity in another way.
While it is good and honest that people are informed about the value and possibility of continual evolution of human consciousness it is best and most skillful, imho, to assist them to live the Truth in accordance with their current cognitive capacity.
Yes, I think it's very important not to expect anyone to live too far beyond themselves.
~David
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Gate, Gate, Parasamgate...
Posted December 10th, 2008 by Michael McAlister in response to evolution, authentic self, etc.Great posts, great dialog.
Couple of quick points:
"I think it's very important not to expect anyone to live too far beyond themselves."
This is fine as long as enlightenment isn't the goal. For an authentic (pardon me) awakening to unfold in any, pardon me again, authentic way, we have to go entirely beyond the self, and then rearrange the wall hangings. Parasamgate, as we say.
"Narcissistic Self 2.0 is better than Narcissistic Self 1.0?"
This isn't always true. I've seen examples of NS2.0 living from deeply attached places of certitude claiming that their attachments were just expressions of their growth into +1 realization.
Herein lies the risk of any approach (not only Andrew's) that sets the ego up to imagine itself and its worldview at "plus one" reality. The ego creatively and subtly either short-circuits "zero" or misinterprets it thus stunting what might be an otherwise beautiful opportunity for release.
M
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
states and stages
Posted December 10th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to Gate, Gate, Parasamgate...Hi Michael,
This is fine as long as enlightenment isn't the goal. For an authentic (pardon me) awakening to unfold in any, pardon me again, authentic way, we have to go entirely beyond the self, and then rearrange the wall hangings. Parasamgate, as we say.
Yes, I agree with that. Jerry asked about cognitive development, and I think that's where we need to be careful. A person's interpretation or view will only evolve so quickly. Ken has said that, generally speaking, it takes 5 years to pass through a stage. Elsewhere he has said that some meditators can pass through 2 stages in 4 years. But I wouldn't think that would be most people.
This isn't always true. I've seen examples of NS2.0 living from deeply attached places of certitude claiming that their attachments were just expressions of their growth into +1 realization.
Yes, that happens for sure, and not pleasant for anyone. :) But of course in that case it is really a regression rather than an evolution into 2.0. I don't think this sort of thing is exclusive to any one path, though. I have seen it occur in Advaita and also the occassional Buddhist.
Herein lies the risk of any approach (not only Andrew's) that sets the ego up to imagine itself and its worldview at "plus one" reality. The ego creatively and subtly either short-circuits "zero" or misinterprets it thus stunting what might be an otherwise beautiful opportunity for release.
Yes, I think you're right that this is the risk of any approach like that, though the same thing can happen in approaches where people are fancying themselves to be very egoless or humble or selfless (there can be shadow there as well). The name we hang on it has some influence, but what really matters is the person's vertical development.
The other thing is that Andrew is really not teaching people to be a better ego. He is teaching people to make a "flip" to deeper psychic (authentic self). This is on a different line than the ego, as Ken's diagram from One Taste illustrates:
But of course more often than not people are going to stay on the frontal and call it the authentic self. That is a pitfall for sure, but I don't think it's a reason not to take on vertical development (as opposed to horizontal release). The same thing could happen with ILP, but the solution, of course, isn't to discard notions of higher stages or work towards them but to make shadowwork one more part of the program, have a vertical-growth oriented sangha, etc.
~David
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
re: evolution, authentic self, etc
Posted December 10th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to evolution, authentic self, etc.Hello David,
There were just a couple of points you make that I wanted to comment on. Michael has already addressed one. I have to agree with Michael that a Spiritual ego is not necessarily better for society and is certainly not better for the individual caught up in its subtle trap.
While there may be surface benefits to society, someone striving to uphold their spiritual self image may produce some apparently good works. But, the defense mechanisms that come into play to protect this image can have devastating effects on society when they are ultimately exhausted; witness Jim Jones, David Koresh and Charles Manson just to name the most notorious Spiritual Narcissists that come to mind. There are others with less tragic final results and more contibutions along the way but overall their lack of genuineness with themselves and others proved detrimental for all participants and to the cause of Spiritual evolution as a whole.
For the individual hiding behind the Spiritual mask this obstacle can prove harder to overcome than the selfish ego. As Michael has already pointed out the combination of strong attraction and subtle bonds can make for a difficult situation. The suffering it causes can too easily be passed off as spiritual traits; for instance, a feeling of hollowness can be explained as being empty of self and an expression of humility.
All in all it seems to me that the wise teacher pays close attention to this potential problem and goes the extra mile to keep students from falling into this subtle trap. I am not claiming that Andrew does not, as I said I have never studied with him directly and I have read enough of his work to know that he is cognizant of this potential problem. But, space and time does have limitations when it comes to communication and the needed caveats may not always be expressed. That is why I feel the choice of language is so very important. Find and use terms that minimize the risk and require less backtracking to correct misconceptions.
Finally, I appreciate that you acknowledge that there may be substance to my concern over the tendency of the Integral view of enlightenment to ignore the possibility for individuals at any level to live in truth, exhibiting genuiness or authenticity in relationship. And, I agree that this authenticity will be deeper and broader at each subsequent level of development. But, I do not agree with your final statement that "we're defining authenticity in another way." Whether we are talking about authenticity (genuiness) at red, turqouise or even third tier we are still speaking about authenticity relative to cognitive development. As long as there is any Mystery remaining, any aspect of the One that remains beyond our ken, then we cannot be expressing the "Whole Truth" or Absolute Authenticity. And yet, we cannot be said to be less than genuine for not expressing that which is beyond our capacity to know.
Namaste
Jerry
------------------------
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
spiritual masks, language, etc.
Posted December 10th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to re: evolution, authentic self, etcHi Jerry,
For the individual hiding behind the Spiritual mask this obstacle can prove harder to overcome than the selfish ego.
That's a very interesting point. It's harder for a person to spot it in themselves, isn't it, and sometimes harder for others to spot as well. Also, you might have a sangha encouraging each other in this spiritual mask and supporting each other in it. Now you really have a mess! :) This really should be emphasized as much or nearly as much as garden-variety ego issues (more common forms of selfishness, self-indulgence, etc.).
And of course if the person happens to have power over an organization then any fault is magnified, and its effects are multiplied. Someone should write a book about how to deal with a situation where a spiritual leader has a big shadow as well.
That is why I feel the choice of language is so very important.
Yes, I really agree with you there. There are many benefits to the language of "authentic self," while we're on the subject, but there are also some drawbacks. For example, the implication is that if you're not the authentic self you're the inauthentic self, and that is the last thing any ego wants, so it could put it in a position of already knowing ("I am the authentic self"). Names like the psychic being (Aurobindo) or deeper psychic (Wilber) or Optimizing Force (one of Almaas' names for it) are more likely to put people in a position of not knowing. However, people may not be as interested in names like that. So authentic self is quite powerful, I think, but it has that one drawback.
But, I do not agree with your final statement that "we're defining authenticity in another way." Whether we are talking about authenticity (genuiness) at red, turqouise or even third tier we are still speaking about authenticity relative to cognitive development.
That's a good point. I suppose then we could define authenticity in at least two ways: 1) being genuinely wherever you happen to be; and 2) having depth (as in Gilligan's higher stages, universal care, integrated, etc.).
~David
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
language of authenticity
Posted December 11th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to spiritual masks, language, etc.David,
Thanks for the gracious, open and respectful manner in which you allowed me to participate in this conversation. This is our first exchange here at I-L and I look forward to listening to your future contributions.
Your closing observation that we can "define authenticity in at least two ways: 1) being genuinely wherever you happen to be; and 2) having depth (as in Gilligan's higher stages, universal care, integrated, etc.)" is precisely the point I was hoping to make. This could be charted in a similar form as the Wilber-Combs latice for states and stages. The framework would be different though because of the limited capacity for lower stages to fully embody higher revelations. And, I think you would find this approach to be more amenable to your "extension" of the latice into third tier. It might be that there are different line's of development that are more readily or fully accessible at each level. At least that is one thing to consider should we (either or both of us) decide to take up the task of putting such a graphic illustration together.
I'll close out with a comment about language that can suit the delicate needs of Spirituality from an Integral perspective. Three of those needs are:
- To recognize the value, spark the motivation and support the efforts of individuals at each and every level to realize and manifest their maximum potential.
- To honor the truth that we are all evolving, individually and collectively, and this evolution appears to spiral into infinity.
- To provide a broad and deep context for evolution that can be understood by everyone and offers a clear back drop for the assessment of needs and progress.
There is one common denominator that includes all of humanity both interiorly and exteriorly and is as limitless in expression as Life itself and that is relationship. There is one common goal of all religious and spiritual paths and traditions and that is genuine relationship; relationship free of pretense and hypocrisy, although some may accent interiority over exteriority and vice versa. It is clear that as we evolve, individually and collectively, that the expression of genuine relationship also evolves. And finally, genuine relationship is resistant to possesion by or as the ego because it is so vast and inclusive. It is a term I use in my work as a coach because it transcends and includes so much.
Jerry
--------------------
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 11th, 2008 by admin in response to language of authenticity
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Life and relationship
Posted December 11th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to [Comment Deleted]Anne,
You question the proposition that relationship is the common denominator, unless maybe I mean , "with the invisible god." And even though I can indeed say that I do include genuineness in relationship as it pertains to the ultimate truth (God, Love, Awareness, Consciousness, etc) that is not the only reason I see relationship as the common ground of all religious traditions. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single tradition that does not speak to the importance of relationship on one scale or another. Establishing and maintaining social order is actually the primary function of religion as a cultural value and social institution. How effective any religion can be along those lines in today's world will depend on how flexible they can be. That is why an Integral influence in the traditions is so important. Otherwise the clash of "codes" meant to support tribal, ethnic or regional stability will only add to the problem of poor human relationships rather than offer resolution.
It is also my observation that no matter where I am or what my experience may be it always involves some sort of relationship.
Indeed, as I write elsewhere:
"Relationship ... is 'the state of affairs between the differentiated parts of the whole'. When viewed in this broad perspective the word 'relationship' points to the quality of the interactions between any and all 'objects' of perception. This includes all that we apprehend and comprehend as well as the relationship between perceiver and perceived.
Simply put, relationship is the manifest potential of immediate experience. Furthermore, when you speak about your 'life' you are speaking about the manifest potential of immediate experience. To state it more directly then; life is relationship and relationship is life!"
So, you are correct about the importance of seeing relationship in a broader way than we customarily do. And you are correct that the ultimate truth about relationship is the paradox of the One that is the Many.
To really be "genuine" in relationship requires honesty with and about oneself. This is the first order of business. That means that the veils of illusion must be lifted. If there is no honesty in how we see, there can be no genuine honesty in how we respond to what we see. So, indeed discovering genuine relationship begins by discovering what is true about who we are, and I mean the whole truth. It will not do to get stuck with half the truth, even if it is the half that see's no problems in relationship because we are all One. We are also many and that not only includes the physical forms but the subtle forms of feelings and thoughts as well. To ignore any of this is to remain emeshed in a pretense.
Thank you once more for your thoughtful and probing questions.
Jer
--------------
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 11th, 2008 by admin in response to Life and relationship
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Always welcome
Posted December 11th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to [Comment Deleted]Anne,
I thought your remarks were right on the mark. If there is a lack of clarity on what someone is saying it is always best to question what is being said. I highly value your observations and hope you don't really believe that what you had to offer to the conversation was in any way inappropriate or silly.
Jer
--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
authenticy, language, and relationship
Posted December 12th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to language of authenticityJerry, thank you, and I've enjoyed the discussion with you as well. Sorry for the delay. Also thanks to Michael, for creating a great space for dialogue, and Anne, who wasn't an asshole but a great integral interlocutor! 
The idea of illustrating authenticity is intriguing. I have been having a hard time visualizing it so far, however. Ken has an ego --> deeper psychic line. Maybe it will just be represented by a separate line like that, but an illustration would be interesting. Another element of it, I think, is balance. I think maybe a vague idea is coming to me . . .
Okay, we have a vertical axis with the stages, like the Wilber-Combs lattice, except what is different here is that the vertical axis is going up half way across the horizontal axis. So authenticity is represented by going up the vertical axis and also staying balanced, balance being represented by the vertical axis, being centered at the vertical axis in the middle of the horizontal axis, at each stage.
Colors might be used somehow . . . In one version of it, we could type all pathologies as being either agentic or communal. So to the left, to the far left would be pathological communion, merging, to the far right pathological agency, alienation. At the center, the right balance.
That's one idea for the horizontal axis. But there are probably others, perhaps some with stages to the right and to the left.
I also think it's great to talk about language as you have, and the requirements or needs of language in integeral spirituality. It seems as though you have listed 6, by the way, with three in the first one and two in the last. This is a discussion in itself.
Your comments on relationship are really interesting as well. What's really interesting to me is how relationship evolves up the spiral. This would be another great discussion.
Looking forward to more,
David
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 12th, 2008 by admin in response to authenticy, language, and relationship
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
authenticity
Posted December 13th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to [Comment Deleted]Anne, I think that's a good idea. For one thing, the psychograph itself could be an indicator of authenticity:
And then, as you say, an authentic balance on each of those lines. On the spiritual line, for example, whether there is balance, whether it is overly agentic or overly communal, how well it is hitting each of the quadrants.
I think it's interesting to think about authenticity--the type that we can see at any level--with regard to children. Many people, as we know, missing the pre-trans fallacy, have thought that children are more "spiritual" than adults. The pre-trans fallacy corrects that, but that doesn't mean the people who thought children were more spiritual were entirely wrong. I think they were seeing that children are often more themselves. They hadn't yet built a socially constructed personality that brought them away from themselves, as some adults do; they hadn't yet had various kinds of splitting and developmental pathologies--they tend to be themselves.
Other indicators of authenticity would include the level of victimhood a person engages in (after a certain level at least), the degree of denial about shadow elements that the person demonstrates. Also, what sort of commitment to improve or evolution there is, in themselves and the world.
~David
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Character and relationship
Posted December 13th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to authenticy, language, and relationshipHello David and Anne
I love this exchange between the two of you. One lights a match the other catches on fire and before you know it you'll both be burning brightly and giving substance to an inspiration. It is the creative process at work. Always keeping in mind that not all creativity is bringing something from nothing. Sometimes it is finding a little something a suitable form.
I will be gone for most of the weekend and busy preparing for the trip otherwise, so I will not be able to join in much. But, I do want to keep the conversation on relationship and spiritual development going and so let me come at it from a slightly different angle.
This conversation began around the observation by Michael that some comments by Andrew C. on the Authentic Self could potentially lead one into the subtle trap of the spiritual ego. And from there we have come to discussing the role of language as a contributing factor to that and a limitation in other regards. For those reasons I have suggested that the term genuine relationship might be more suitable as both an inspiration and a gauge for assessment. (a reality check?)
This is really not someting entirely new In fact it is was quite common within the traditions, but because of the rigidity of the forms it took (absolute rules and codes of behavior) the insights into relativity by post modernity caused the essential meaning to be discarded along with the forms.
The word character has fallen out of fashion these days, except to use as a derogatory term or to to describe someone's eccentricity. But, developing character used to be a prerequiste before one was exposed to the esoteric teachings on spirituality. Character, in this sense, speaks to the quality of the personality or personhood that spirit or soul inhabits. Outwardly this quality is exhibited by our words and actions and that is where past forms of character building have focused their efforts. But the real measure of character is the congruence (or lack thereof) between the inner reality and the outer behavior, what I have started to refer to as being genuine in relationship. This stems from the understanding that our intra-relationships (within our psyche) and our inter-relationships (with the other) are not really separate from each other.
This new form of speaking about character as genuine relationship, in my opinion, allows for the forward looking creative impulse that fuels our evolutionary drive to be expressed in the present. This reduces the risk of forming a spiritual ego around a future ideal. Plus, it helps to keep us in the present moment, where the rubber meets the road. Too much emphasis on transformation over good translation can also take us away from the reality of Now. Another benefit is it allows for the relativity of the spiral and cultural influence to both be taken into account, so that we can honor and include two central and important truths - one from the integral perspective and the other from the post modern worldview.
By the way, I was very pleased just a few weeks back to hear Andrew Cohen speak of relationship in a way that is very compatible with what I have said. It was in his last series of audio releases on WIE Unbound .
Thanks
Jer
--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 14th, 2008 by admin in response to Character and relationship
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Transparency, Vulnerability, and the Universal Voice
Posted December 15th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to [Comment Deleted]Hi Anne,
Those are great points. I agree that the idea of non-separateness really raises the bar--if we are truly seeing non-separateness, we will act like it, act in service of the whole, the evolutionary process. I was looking at Jerry's website, and I believe he used the term "heart service," and that sounds good to me.
The list of the implications you list are really interesting--self-disclosure, vulnerability, and transparency. I have contemplated those often and would really be interested in what you (and Jerry and Michael) would have to say about them.
I think we would have to make a distinction, for one thing, between "disclosing everything" and disclosing what was truly helpful for the process. For example, disclosing every discomfort we felt would annoy people! Sometimes disclosing fear might make the other person feel fearful as well.
On the other end of the spectrum, not enough disclosure could foster alienation rather than relationship. Either way--disclosure or non-disclosure--could turn into energy vampring or manipulation at times.
I would be particularly interested in what you had to say about vulnerability because that is something I have been contemplating recently. One thing I think it would mean would be opening oneself up, for the sake of love and service, even if rejection were a possibility.
Yes, I agree that if we saw non-separateness we wouldn't just act for our own benefit. We might make a distinction between seeing non-separateness and feeling non-separateness. Seeing or cognizing non-separateness would come first, and it alone might not compel someone to act for the sake of the whole or the process. But once one was really feeling it I believe they would have no choice but to act for the sake of the whole, the evolutionary process.
It's really interesting that you bring up the "universal voice." It sounds like you might be referring to what Aurobindo called the "psychic being" or Ken Wilber the "deeper psychic" or Andrew Cohen the "authentic self." Is this right? Are you familiar with the guru-and-pandit discussions?And yes, that doesn't have a personal agenda--I believe it cares about the process, the evolution of the process, the soul, alleviating suffering, etc. The "Universal Voice" is an interesting name--it would be what we would hear once we had realized the Universal Soul, yes?
~David
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
and now a word from AC
Posted December 15th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Transparency, Vulnerability, and the Universal VoiceHello again Anne and David,
You both clearly grasp the implications of what it means to be authentic/genuine in relationship and how viewing spiritual development in this context allows for very personal interactions directed, in a very real sense, by Universal intent. It is what I call the Heart of Love in action; it is a response to life (immediate experience) as Life (infinite potential).
It seems there is a bit of a theme in the air. After reading your comments I came across the quote of the week from Andrew Cohen which comes from his latest teaching, “Integrity is more Challenging than Enlightenment”, a short piece very relevant to our discussion here. Here is part of the quote I received by email, “ …profound awakening to our inherent responsibility as evolving human beings at the leading edge becomes the basis for a new moral context for human life. So the expression of integrity or moral virtue would be that the choices we make and the actions we take would consistently express our recognition of this responsibility and our genuine care about creating our future … integrity of self would mean there is a significant correlation between our deepest ideals and convictions, and the way we actually live our lives”.
I want to read and re-read what you have each contributed here and then see what, if anything, arises in further response. But, I wanted to share this bit from Andrew now, since after all it was his comments that prompted Michael to write his initial blog that has provided the space for this discussion.
Jerry
-----
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 15th, 2008 by admin in response to Transparency, Vulnerability, and the Universal Voice
This comment has been deleted by the author.
- Please Login to Add Comments
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Translation and Transformation
Posted December 16th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Transparency, Vulnerability, and the Universal VoiceHello Anne and David,
I have had some time to absorb your comments and I find them interesting. But, rather than address them one by one I would like to get back to the bigger picture and see your questions and observations in the context of genuine relationship. (authentic self in action?, if you prefer)
Anne did put it all in context with the observation that in the realization that there is no separation between inner and outer worlds, “Maybe we would not see the separate self at all; we would only see our relationship in the genuine exchange.” I agree in principle. However, I might phrase it slightly differently. Perhaps something like this, “We would no longer be limited by self concern and we would be free to relate to the whole truth of the moment.”
Notice in particular that I did not say that self concern would vanish or that we could not see ourselves as separate. There may be states where this the case and there may be a stage where this is true, but we are looking at relationship as the context for states and stages and what would constitute genuine relationship in the various states and stages. The key is the change in the status of the self.
While theoretically the stages of development point to such a change in status, the fact is very few people genuinely exhibit stage appropriate behavior the majority of the time. That is, a good deal of the time they do not respond to life in the moment in a manner that is congruent with their cognitive stage of development. Why is this so?
Could the conflict be related to our poor or incomplete integration of previous stages? Is it possible that the imbalance in the qualitative lines of development (value, moral, spiritual, emotional, etc) is an indicator of this lack of integration? What impact would the realization that our inner world and the experience we have of the outer world are intimately connected (one) have on our motivation to resolve inner conflicts and bring about a measure of equalization in these critical lines of development? How would the status of self at a particular stage of development be affected by this realization?
While I share your curiosity about what transparency, vulnerability, and disclosure might look like in this context I would point out that whatever it looks like will be stage specific. There is a bit of a trap we walk into when we start codifying what we expect should happen. We can loose sight of the greater spiral and by establishing new ideals or standards to achieve we may generate more internal conflict rather than resolve the existing conflict. It seems to me that when internal conflicts are resolved and there is genuine integration the stage appropriate response will naturally arise.
Attending to the discovery of genuine relationship and acting accordingly is a matter of clearing up the bugs in our translation software; the human capacity for making meaning. It is the meanings we make that determine the quality of our relationships and it is the quality of relationship that determines how we respond in relationship.
Transformation (stage development) is, by definition, beyond our personal capacity to directly affect. We do, however, have the capacity to see the truth of the moment in accordance with the limits of our current cognitive stage. And this is true at any stage. While I see lots of subtle and not so subtle traps in setting transformation through the stages as a goal that can be achieved through activating a plan I see only benefit in seeking greater clarity in how we translate life events. I am also of the opinion that this in itself contributes to quickening the pace of healthy transformation.
Thanks again for engaging in this exchange of views.
Jer
--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 16th, 2008 by admin
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Being Still
Posted December 16th, 2008 by Michael McAlister in response to [Comment Deleted]Thank you one and all for the amazing exchange.
So I'll cut to the chase: at this point we seem to be articulating what I was trying to communicate in the initial post.
Offering language that confuses and conflates how we are neither the One nor the Many can inhibit "authenticity". The cool thing that I'm seeing from my cushion is that Realization, if guided by the teacher and not attached to by the student, offers up an "authenticity" that is spontaneous and totally connected. Integration of this hinges, then, on a line that I haven't seen in Wilber's model; one we might call Embodiment. For that matter, both the guru and the pandit have had their share of questions directed at them in relation to this very line of their own development. This isn't to take anything away from either one of them. I happen to like them both personally and I think what they are doing is, on base, profoundly helpful in getting contemporary teacher and student alike on an ever deepening, more integrated Path. That said, there is a lot of ken that shows up in Ken. There is also a lot of andrew that shows up as Andrew. This situation always has the chance of compromising any student's assimilation of the teaching, and ultimately inhibits integration.
"Knowing" what we might call Stillness, and saturating our experience with Its recognition, on the other hand, opens each of us up to Embodiment. And this Embodiment "Knows" beyond the confines of name and form that there is no-thing other than genuine relationship. It sees fully and freely that we are nothing other than genuine relationship. Ever. Measurement, qualification, and quantification of anything and everything are seen as useful byproducts of the self-at-subtle-level awareness, and their utility is mirrored in our bodily form. But this gross bodily form can be taught to continually open further, in each moment, to what is beyond itself once Realization compassionately and continually spanks it. This orientation and reorientation in the Now is the critical homecoming that the Authentic Self sees as something it has already figured out, and thus, doesn't need to integrate.
And that's the problem. Without this integration, the ignored line of Embodiment remains ignored and never can be seen in the Light of what would otherwise have the potential of arising as an integrated Awakening.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Right on the mark
Posted December 17th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Being Still"And this Embodiment "Knows" beyond the confines of name and form that there is no-thing other than genuine relationship. It sees fully and freely that we are nothing other than genuine relationship. Ever"
You have hit the nail on the head. Genuine relationship is not something we create, it is something that we discover.
"But this gross bodily form can be taught to continually open further, in each moment, to what is beyond itself once Realization compassionately and continually spanks it. "
Yes, it is a continual process, that is why I refer to it as discovering genuine relationship.
Namaste
Jerry
-
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Trial and error
Posted December 17th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to [Comment Deleted]Anne,
You say, "I think we spend a great deal of time coming to terms with the realization that what we find most Real has to be experimented with and seen with the eyes of Community" I agree with you. It is one thing to have an insight into the true nature of Life as it is, quite another to live by that insight. It can appear to be quite daunting and we want to shy away. We may even convince ourselves that there is no reason to even try because we are not ready yet, not "good" enough to succeed. But, if we are to be true to ourselves, try we must. And then we just might find the courage to "jump in to relationship as screwed up as we may be" and when we do we might discover that it matters not if others want something similar. What matters most is that we try and try again.
Jer
-
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted December 9th, 2008 by admin