For a long time I've been wondering what would be a complimentary form of contemplation/meditation to go along with mindfulness training. Much of the mindfulness training I have been exposed to is somewhat depersonalizing, so it is very helpful in creating the space that allows one to drop a great deal of one's negatively reactive responses, but it doesn't necessarily help beginners become more connected with other people and connective emotionality. This is not meant as a slam on mindfulness training in general or on any particular techniques, nor is my exposure to various techniques exhaustive. But in my experience, mindfulness leads people away from habitual reactivity and also often leads away from connectivity to some extent. Stepping away from habitual reactivity is like opening the door to a more immediate and authentic connection, but it's still necessary to step through that door.
I'm a big fan of Traleg Kyabgon's book MIND AT EASE. One of the few aspects of this book that can make it somewhat inaccessible or not directly and deeply applicable (especially if you spend your life grinding through books on meditation to distill techniques and effects!) is the number of suggested meditations. I've often felt like, "Well, there are so many things to possibly focus on, how can I just focus on one? And which one? How do I know which one?" As my study focus and interest shifts somewhat away from an emphasis on neurological effects and metaphysical states, it is shifting towards emotions and relationships.
I believe there are probably one or two techniques that can be chosen as "essential" for each level of attentional ability. Obviously, mindfulness practice will be hugely important at the stage of Mindful Appreciation. But I also wondered if some seated meditation technique might be really applicable concerning the appreciation side to go along with the precision of mindfulness. Since a great deal of my remaining stress comes from interactions with other people, I'm most interested in turning that "stuck energy"--frustration and disappointment--into appreciation and communion. Our frustrations and desires and inspiration are usually closely connected.
I like Kyabgon's method of moving through a variety of steps in one meditation session. Starting off with releasing stress and deep breathing perhaps, establishing calm and some degree of clarity, and then incorporating some type of analytic or thoughtful contemplation into that state of tranquility or balanced mind. And, again from Kyabgon, I like the effects of comparing one sort of personal reaction to another. This is the one I find most solid, earthy, or fitting right now.
After about three minutes of calming and focusing--it may take up to twelve or so minutes to feel relatively calm and somewhat stable in one's calm--I spend a few minutes (maybe three to five again) thinking of everyday stress. I think of how I tend to be when I feel agitated or frustrated in my daily life. There's the exasperation in facing chores ("I don't want to do dishes again!"), worry (With all this traffic, how will I get there in time? If I'm late will I keep my job? How will I pay my bills if I lose my job?"), disappointment in myself and others (We should be so much better than this; I thought so much better of you/me"), frustrated aggression ("Get out of my way, Jackass!"). Although spending time in this frame of mind is unpleasant, I know I'm going back to it at some point tomorrow if I don't find a way to address it. I can't just feel nice when I feel agitated this way, and positive thinking doesn't do it for me. So I'm sharing what works for me. After I feel like I'm really "in" this sort of feeling, I switch gears. I shift to focusing on some instance when I helped someone, when I did something worthwhile for or with someone else that I can feel good about. I think about some instance where maybe I could help someone and I visualize myself helping. I think of some instance where I could use some help, and I visualize what it would be like if someone helped me then. I stay with this emotional feeling for a long time (I don't know what will feel like a long time to other folks). I listen to this feeling as a very important and basic part of human nature. And I take a few minutes, going slowly, to think about engaging with this part of other people when I run into them. I think about how this is part of their emotional make-up too, but that they may get caught up in their everyday preoccupations like I do. And I resolve to value this state of mind over being stressed, this type of action over those that are focused primarily on gaining me some comfort. (There is actually a different set of neurological pathways in the brain that are activated when we regard ourselves and our comfort as opposed to when we are generous with others.)
If this seems like too much of a "hearts and flowers" type of meditation, read ON KINDNESS. Rather than giving metaphysical "reasons" why we should be good, I tend to prefer the evolutionary psychology and neurophysiology that presents evidence on how we are social animals. So I've got more references if ON KINDNESS doesn't fit the bill for you. But the more we practice shifting out of self-regard-mode, the more able we are to get outside of our personally constructed mental prisons. The more we regard others, the more our minds "naturally" move in that direction without effort. And the happiest people are those who are most socially connected and active (along with getting into flow-states). That is simply how it is. This is one of the techniques that strikes me as directly applicable, effective, and fitting. Exemplary.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Mindful Humor?
My question for today is how closely locked mindfulness and equanimity are. Further, does mindfulness or equanimity--in very precise moments--exclude humor, or maybe more accurately, laughter? Is there a significant shift in mental states between the precision of mindfulness (perhaps more synchronized cortical functioning?) and whatever inconsistency in comparison that sparks laughter? I think it's likely that this can be answered by compiling existing neurophysiological data rather than needing to create more.
But seriously, folks...if samatta leads to tranquility, that tranquility is different from humor and laughter. In my own experience, it seems that there is a sort of blissful sense of possibility, like a nimbus of almost-laughter, that sometimes accompanies mindfulness meditation. Laughter itself seems like a distraction from focus, from single-mindedness and the drift into depths of equanimity. But laughter feels somewhat distinct from that nimbus that is like potential-laughing-with-me. I wonder about whether that liminal feeling full of possibility is like the anticipation that precedes a punchline. I think it is. And if that is so, if that is like Jeffrey Schwartz's equipotentiality (concerning potential brain states/responses) is there a clear and obvious bifurcation between moving towards laughter and tranquility?
It seems to me that, in an Abhidhamma sense, mindfulness may put a sharp edge on consciousness that can accentuate humor, but there is a significant shift between a moment of mindful precision that sets up humor and some actual conception or feeling of humor in a following "moment". (I'm assuming we're already ruling out nervous laughter and the type of humor that simply reduces cognitive dissonance, "manufactured laughter", "purposeful laughter".)
In this question, I think we're getting at the differences (or potential differences) between sahaj samadhi and something along the lines of nirvikalpa samadhi. In one sense, samadhi is samadhi. In another sense, oneness is eternal and ever-present and unchanging while in another, it seems eternal and ever-present and fluid.
But seriously, folks...if samatta leads to tranquility, that tranquility is different from humor and laughter. In my own experience, it seems that there is a sort of blissful sense of possibility, like a nimbus of almost-laughter, that sometimes accompanies mindfulness meditation. Laughter itself seems like a distraction from focus, from single-mindedness and the drift into depths of equanimity. But laughter feels somewhat distinct from that nimbus that is like potential-laughing-with-me. I wonder about whether that liminal feeling full of possibility is like the anticipation that precedes a punchline. I think it is. And if that is so, if that is like Jeffrey Schwartz's equipotentiality (concerning potential brain states/responses) is there a clear and obvious bifurcation between moving towards laughter and tranquility?
It seems to me that, in an Abhidhamma sense, mindfulness may put a sharp edge on consciousness that can accentuate humor, but there is a significant shift between a moment of mindful precision that sets up humor and some actual conception or feeling of humor in a following "moment". (I'm assuming we're already ruling out nervous laughter and the type of humor that simply reduces cognitive dissonance, "manufactured laughter", "purposeful laughter".)
In this question, I think we're getting at the differences (or potential differences) between sahaj samadhi and something along the lines of nirvikalpa samadhi. In one sense, samadhi is samadhi. In another sense, oneness is eternal and ever-present and unchanging while in another, it seems eternal and ever-present and fluid.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Group Identity
This hierarchy of identities may help to direct organizational progress as well. We can compare private organizations (family), civic organizations, and professional organizations (companies). With families, it is obvious that one purpose is to "raise" the children, and it is not such a stretch to include "raising" the adults as well. With the obvious age/experience difference, the adults will have a greater accountability but not necessarily any greater ability. Nonprofit and voluntary organizations usually exist for an explicit purpose. Their group dynamics will be similar to the group dynamics that play out in for-profit organizations.
There are at least two major types of for-profit organizations. The first is private organizations that are not under the pressures inherent in the stock market. Private organizations are able to find a business niche, produce a product or service, and survive by maintaining an acceptable net profit. Public for-profit organizations are under the pressures of the interest of absentee investors. (My bias is notably, admittedly against this interest. This is where I find profit and growth acceptable but economic exploitation unacceptable.) Generally, the push from absentee investors is towards increasing profit rather than sustainable growth and profit, so this type of organization tends to grow to unsustainable size through unsustainable means. (Recently, "too big to fail".)
In order to sell, a company provides some product or service. This is analogous to the creative self. As a business, this production does not need to be playful or involve any depth of curiosity if the product or service is simple enough and if demand and competition are somewhat consistent. As competition increases, or if demand is erratic, then a greater degree of creativity and flexibility becomes important. So production of a saleable product or service is necessary in for-profit organizations.
At the level of Purpose, or able self, we encounter the bottom line. The bottom line involves staying in business. Because societies progress, industries progress, and most products also must progress. Even with products that don't change much over time--such as bread--we'll see changes in production, distribution, and sales. With products that involve technology, we'll see more noticeable, more significant change even in the products themselves. At base, then, companies must keep up with the changes in their industries even if their (energy) industries are behind social expectations. With something as competitive as software, if you're not producing those changes, the industry may pass you by altogether. So with different industries, there are different pressures, obviously. Staying in business, continuing to produce, is the bottom line even if the products one produces change. There's a strong product focus here.
At the level of Understanding, we begin to deal in management and business planning. This is the "good and right" self. As far as for-profit businesses are concerned, a good business is a successful business. At this point, then, we're focusing on effective planning and efficient management. With a hierarchical structure, the managers are not necessarily producers of product. To the extent that managers are not hands-on producers, they face multiple and competing goal sets. Bureaucracy becomes very important as managers focus less on the quality of the product and sustainability of the company and more on maintaining their own jobs. The "good" manager will be able to handle these three goal sets. At this level of abstraction, besides bureaucracy gaining ground, there is also the possibility of conceptual products: teaching, consulting, therapy, research, etc. So intellectual rights also come in.
Now, as we include increasing levels of complexity, integration becomes increasingly important. If you are an individual farmer looking to get agricultural products to a local market, your business plan may be fairly simple even if your business takes a great deal of personal investment. As multiple classes of workers come into the picture, the competition between class interests (the interests of different positions) complicate the overall process to the extent that these interests cannot be (or simply are not) integrated. Historically, managers have enjoyed a greater organizational status than front-line or ground-level workers. Recently, as the preponderance of available products also moves up this scale, managers have found their status challenged as well. This is not a new process even if it is a new class being challenged. Just as mechanization devalued physical labor, the ready availability of information challenges the expert status of "knowledge workers" and managers while devaluing every type of intellectual property except cutting-edge material. Even the valuable/saleable lifespan of cutting-edge material is shrinking.
The market also changes. Consumer expectations change. This is true for governments and their citizens as well. As the availability of knowledge becomes expected, consumers become more educated. As consumers become more educated--which occurs while production methods and products become increasingly differentiated--they have the option of becoming choosier. And in order to make what they consider to be good choices, they expect a greater degree of transparency. These expectations influence business to not only be "good" at production but also "right" (in the consumer's eyes at least) about how and what they produce. While there is no absolute transparency, information, or coordination between producer and consumer, it is generally in the interest of producers to coordinate with their consumers. All of this so far is taken for granted for the most part.
But this space between Understanding and Appreciation is full of promise...and tension. At the level of Appreciation, you have educated amateurs who can compete with businesses in endeavors that allow open-source production (Linux v. Microsoft, for example). This threatens the market share and sometimes even the existence of certain businesses. As this occurs, coordinating a group of dispersed, interested individuals (coordination) challenges the institutionalized management process (design) itself. As it turns out, coordination of educated individuals is much more effective at producing innovation because of the nature of innovation. This is interesting. Management always had to be somewhat responsive to the physical situation, ground-level workers, competition, and consumer expectations. But this expands competition to include groups that are not under the pressure to create financial profit. In the past, management could improve by focusing on efficiency; but now, management is competing against a production process where efficiency is not a significant concern. And, by taking out efficiency as a significant concern, open-sourcing can be much more effective at creating innovation. To the extent that it ends up making goods available to the public for free, its effects end up being very efficient if the public utilizes the products on a widespread basis.
Part of what this does is to emphasize the important of reputation. When someone needs a finite product within a certain timeframe and certain parameters, it's still best to hire a reputable business. But as societies meet the basic needs of their populations, those populations increasingly turn their attention to progress, to innovation and appreciation--same as happened with mechanization of agricultural production. Surplus attention moves upwards and out. Increasingly--and this is noticeable at the most creative, most competitive firms--people look for the expression of their creative, playful, and true selves where they work.
As firms look for sustainability in this changing environment, it can seem that demands come from all over. It can help to organize goals by degree of necessity in order to determine what is possible. The most basic set of necessities are the physical necessities that it takes to create and market a product. This forms one set of pressures. Integrating expectations of worker classes, reducing conflict between classes (alignment), creates another. Improving production and distribution methods towards consumer-driven expectations of ethical production is another (one which has increased and will likely continue to increase for some time). Developing and maintaining industry advantages are another. Competing with open-sourcing is one that fits hand-in-glove with maintaining and developing talent. Truly talented individuals with cutting-edge training have high expectations. Here, it can be helpful to differentiate between playful enjoyment and creativity as separate from the sense of a meaningful life. While talented individuals will want (demand) both to some extent, providing one or the other may be easier. Trying to provide both may be possible, but even so it helps to distinguish the two. In fact, it may be possible to set up the context of the work situation to also encourage flow experiences at work (pleasure, flow, and meaning being different but complimentary).
A great part of integrating company mission, worker class interests, consumer expectations, and pleasure-flow-meaning will involve being able to communicate to these different levels of goals and interests. Depending on the message one wants to convey, it will be helpful to set up communications customs and expectations to fit with these different levels. A further dialogue on customs and expectations within communications may be called for. Further exploration on where open-sourcing is more effective than institutionalized design will also be interesting.
There are at least two major types of for-profit organizations. The first is private organizations that are not under the pressures inherent in the stock market. Private organizations are able to find a business niche, produce a product or service, and survive by maintaining an acceptable net profit. Public for-profit organizations are under the pressures of the interest of absentee investors. (My bias is notably, admittedly against this interest. This is where I find profit and growth acceptable but economic exploitation unacceptable.) Generally, the push from absentee investors is towards increasing profit rather than sustainable growth and profit, so this type of organization tends to grow to unsustainable size through unsustainable means. (Recently, "too big to fail".)
In order to sell, a company provides some product or service. This is analogous to the creative self. As a business, this production does not need to be playful or involve any depth of curiosity if the product or service is simple enough and if demand and competition are somewhat consistent. As competition increases, or if demand is erratic, then a greater degree of creativity and flexibility becomes important. So production of a saleable product or service is necessary in for-profit organizations.
At the level of Purpose, or able self, we encounter the bottom line. The bottom line involves staying in business. Because societies progress, industries progress, and most products also must progress. Even with products that don't change much over time--such as bread--we'll see changes in production, distribution, and sales. With products that involve technology, we'll see more noticeable, more significant change even in the products themselves. At base, then, companies must keep up with the changes in their industries even if their (energy) industries are behind social expectations. With something as competitive as software, if you're not producing those changes, the industry may pass you by altogether. So with different industries, there are different pressures, obviously. Staying in business, continuing to produce, is the bottom line even if the products one produces change. There's a strong product focus here.
At the level of Understanding, we begin to deal in management and business planning. This is the "good and right" self. As far as for-profit businesses are concerned, a good business is a successful business. At this point, then, we're focusing on effective planning and efficient management. With a hierarchical structure, the managers are not necessarily producers of product. To the extent that managers are not hands-on producers, they face multiple and competing goal sets. Bureaucracy becomes very important as managers focus less on the quality of the product and sustainability of the company and more on maintaining their own jobs. The "good" manager will be able to handle these three goal sets. At this level of abstraction, besides bureaucracy gaining ground, there is also the possibility of conceptual products: teaching, consulting, therapy, research, etc. So intellectual rights also come in.
Now, as we include increasing levels of complexity, integration becomes increasingly important. If you are an individual farmer looking to get agricultural products to a local market, your business plan may be fairly simple even if your business takes a great deal of personal investment. As multiple classes of workers come into the picture, the competition between class interests (the interests of different positions) complicate the overall process to the extent that these interests cannot be (or simply are not) integrated. Historically, managers have enjoyed a greater organizational status than front-line or ground-level workers. Recently, as the preponderance of available products also moves up this scale, managers have found their status challenged as well. This is not a new process even if it is a new class being challenged. Just as mechanization devalued physical labor, the ready availability of information challenges the expert status of "knowledge workers" and managers while devaluing every type of intellectual property except cutting-edge material. Even the valuable/saleable lifespan of cutting-edge material is shrinking.
The market also changes. Consumer expectations change. This is true for governments and their citizens as well. As the availability of knowledge becomes expected, consumers become more educated. As consumers become more educated--which occurs while production methods and products become increasingly differentiated--they have the option of becoming choosier. And in order to make what they consider to be good choices, they expect a greater degree of transparency. These expectations influence business to not only be "good" at production but also "right" (in the consumer's eyes at least) about how and what they produce. While there is no absolute transparency, information, or coordination between producer and consumer, it is generally in the interest of producers to coordinate with their consumers. All of this so far is taken for granted for the most part.
But this space between Understanding and Appreciation is full of promise...and tension. At the level of Appreciation, you have educated amateurs who can compete with businesses in endeavors that allow open-source production (Linux v. Microsoft, for example). This threatens the market share and sometimes even the existence of certain businesses. As this occurs, coordinating a group of dispersed, interested individuals (coordination) challenges the institutionalized management process (design) itself. As it turns out, coordination of educated individuals is much more effective at producing innovation because of the nature of innovation. This is interesting. Management always had to be somewhat responsive to the physical situation, ground-level workers, competition, and consumer expectations. But this expands competition to include groups that are not under the pressure to create financial profit. In the past, management could improve by focusing on efficiency; but now, management is competing against a production process where efficiency is not a significant concern. And, by taking out efficiency as a significant concern, open-sourcing can be much more effective at creating innovation. To the extent that it ends up making goods available to the public for free, its effects end up being very efficient if the public utilizes the products on a widespread basis.
Part of what this does is to emphasize the important of reputation. When someone needs a finite product within a certain timeframe and certain parameters, it's still best to hire a reputable business. But as societies meet the basic needs of their populations, those populations increasingly turn their attention to progress, to innovation and appreciation--same as happened with mechanization of agricultural production. Surplus attention moves upwards and out. Increasingly--and this is noticeable at the most creative, most competitive firms--people look for the expression of their creative, playful, and true selves where they work.
As firms look for sustainability in this changing environment, it can seem that demands come from all over. It can help to organize goals by degree of necessity in order to determine what is possible. The most basic set of necessities are the physical necessities that it takes to create and market a product. This forms one set of pressures. Integrating expectations of worker classes, reducing conflict between classes (alignment), creates another. Improving production and distribution methods towards consumer-driven expectations of ethical production is another (one which has increased and will likely continue to increase for some time). Developing and maintaining industry advantages are another. Competing with open-sourcing is one that fits hand-in-glove with maintaining and developing talent. Truly talented individuals with cutting-edge training have high expectations. Here, it can be helpful to differentiate between playful enjoyment and creativity as separate from the sense of a meaningful life. While talented individuals will want (demand) both to some extent, providing one or the other may be easier. Trying to provide both may be possible, but even so it helps to distinguish the two. In fact, it may be possible to set up the context of the work situation to also encourage flow experiences at work (pleasure, flow, and meaning being different but complimentary).
A great part of integrating company mission, worker class interests, consumer expectations, and pleasure-flow-meaning will involve being able to communicate to these different levels of goals and interests. Depending on the message one wants to convey, it will be helpful to set up communications customs and expectations to fit with these different levels. A further dialogue on customs and expectations within communications may be called for. Further exploration on where open-sourcing is more effective than institutionalized design will also be interesting.
Why Affirmation of Identities?
When we look towards emergence in social processes as opposed to looking at how to garner more power or status from the social structures and customs already in place, we are looking in a fundamentally new way. Rather than looking at a zero-sum equation (as if there is only so much affluence, power, status, whatever), we end up looking to create. One difficulty, though, is that many of us feel that desire to create without having a clear idea of what we want to collaborate on creating. This is where affirming identities can be applicable.
Essentially, we are asking the question: where is opportunity? Or, "If Opportunity is always knocking, what is possible now?" In the same way that it is somewhat true that all politics are local, all actionable opportunity is local, present, immediate. In order to seize the day, this day, this moment, we need to see the opportunity that is offered here and now. With limited vision, the easiest and surest way to do that is to garner some degree of power or status as historically (already) recognized. This is a process of painting oneself into a corner, though. Eventually, we will bump into everyone else who is painting THEMSELVES into the same corner!
Conflict only makes the limitations obvious and unavoidable--it doesn't suggest progress. What's more, the conflict is only an outcome of limited vision--not so much an inevitable consequence of human nature. When we have enough to space to grow into, most of us are more interested in growth, play, and creative exchange more than limited and limiting positions (corners). It's a high enough percentage that, once we realize what is genuinely inherent in human nature and how to recognize opportunity, there are easily enough of us to contain the psychopaths that will still be attempting conquest of various corners of the world.
In order to suggest or prompt for progress rather than ignoring conflict, winning conflict, or despising conflict, we have to train ourselves to see and utilize opportunity. Now, the physical world (ecology, pollution, economics, etc.) is too complex for me to actually control or even understand fully. But there are certain trends in psychological motivations that are based on universal brain potentials and genetic programming which coordinate our actions whether we recognize the coordination or not. An unintentional experience of these motivations will as likely lead us into competing for corners as to progress and a utilization of opportunities.
Because the world is so complex and society is so mobile, it is hard to plan explicit and concrete progress on a large scale. That's okay--human planning has always fallen far short of the mark set by those who believe in planning. And when it does, and it usually does, we rely on our resilience. If we know ahead of time that our planning is likely to come up short, it doesn't mean we shouldn't plan. It simply means that we should begin to emphasize our resilience. Focusing on resilience--as opposed to only looking at threat and security--not only teaches us about resilience but also puts us in a frame of mind that encourages creativity and action in the face of threat. Emphasizing threat and pumping people for fear, on the other hand, encourages reliance on authority, learned helplessness, and "groupthink".
From an Understanding-level interpretation of the world, we can do our power analyses, risk analyses, etc. and try to problem-solve. But unequal power structures and risk will not go away. In order to take the next step towards flexibility and agency, we need to look at how to move beyond seeing the world in terms of competitive structures/positions and problems to be solved. How? This is simple. We need to encourage intentional experience of the things that drive us. What's more, rather than seeing those things, those drives, as problems, we need to find ways to see our basic and universal drives as potentially valuable. (I say "potentially" because I am a realist; the same drives, taken in a close-minded way, also move us towards fighting in various corners.)
How do we find these seemingly elusive opportunities, these perspectives on potential value? Simple. We look at which "selves" or what qualities others are trying to feel by what they do. We are all almost always trying for something better. We almost always interpret other people's behavior as selfish or incomplete in some way. And that combination allows us to see our own aspiration in comparison to other people's limitations. Psychologically, this puts us in the one-up position, gives us comparative status or moral power in our own minds. Other people are doing the same, and in the real world, our competing visions (when I believe I'm one-up while you believe you're one-up) lead us to conflict. What we can do instead of painting ourselves into that contested and shrinking corner is to start to see our interpretation of ourselves-as-good as a bad thing. This goes into all the humans-are-corrupt, ego-is-evil interpretations. Those interpretations also set up a shrinking corner where people compete to be seen as less-selfish rather than as good or worthy. Bleh, I say, bleh.
Another option is to start to see other people's motivations as affirming in some way, just as I experience most of my motivations to be affirming. This sets up an expanding space and an expansive mindset. What we look to do with this mindset, then, is to separate the limiting aspects of behavior from the positive aspects of motivation. In other words, we combine realism and affirmation while diminishing the assumption that being in a separating/separated one-up position (shrinking corner) is so ideal. I do the same thing for myself as for you. I look at what I'm doing, what positive aspect or self this behavior is intended to affirm, and I check whether or not it is actually supporting a playful self, able self, good and right self, a mature self, a true self, a beatific self, or a fruition self.
Part of what this method assumes is that I am willing to be "right" enough in my thinking and interactions to actually question myself. Usually, when other people question us in ways we don't want, we take it as judgment and threat of our precious corner. We feel cornered. That's a pretty consistent sign. If I feel cornered, I've probably painted myself a good ways towards a corner. In such a situation, someone else competing for that corner or pointing out how I'm limiting myself is secondary to whether or not I am actually painting myself into a corner. If I can't question myself, I have already cornered myself, put my spirit in a stranglehold. If that's what I'm doing, it makes little difference--although it can be distracting--if someone else comes along and tries to choke me!
We are all looking to experience ourselves as open, clear, and free. That is truly who we are and we fight against untrue expressions of who we are. But to actually grow into that freedom--the actual, real-world truth of that freedom--we must know ourselves as creative, able, good, and mature. As Shams of Tabriz said, "All lights are friends to each other." My true self is open to your true self. When I feel closed-off, that is not my light, not my true self. When that is how I am being, I have work to do. My opportunity, at that point, is to take responsibility for how I am feeling and what I am doing. Putting in the necessary work, at that point, is the genuine authentic expression that I want to be and express who I really am. I affirm my light.
Hasrat Inayat Khan said, "Everything in this world which seems to lack harmony is in reality the limitation of man's own vision." If we want to live the beatitude in that statement, we must be true to ourselves, true to each other, true to our world. To find the beatitude in that statement or this world, we must find how it is true.
Essentially, we are asking the question: where is opportunity? Or, "If Opportunity is always knocking, what is possible now?" In the same way that it is somewhat true that all politics are local, all actionable opportunity is local, present, immediate. In order to seize the day, this day, this moment, we need to see the opportunity that is offered here and now. With limited vision, the easiest and surest way to do that is to garner some degree of power or status as historically (already) recognized. This is a process of painting oneself into a corner, though. Eventually, we will bump into everyone else who is painting THEMSELVES into the same corner!
Conflict only makes the limitations obvious and unavoidable--it doesn't suggest progress. What's more, the conflict is only an outcome of limited vision--not so much an inevitable consequence of human nature. When we have enough to space to grow into, most of us are more interested in growth, play, and creative exchange more than limited and limiting positions (corners). It's a high enough percentage that, once we realize what is genuinely inherent in human nature and how to recognize opportunity, there are easily enough of us to contain the psychopaths that will still be attempting conquest of various corners of the world.
In order to suggest or prompt for progress rather than ignoring conflict, winning conflict, or despising conflict, we have to train ourselves to see and utilize opportunity. Now, the physical world (ecology, pollution, economics, etc.) is too complex for me to actually control or even understand fully. But there are certain trends in psychological motivations that are based on universal brain potentials and genetic programming which coordinate our actions whether we recognize the coordination or not. An unintentional experience of these motivations will as likely lead us into competing for corners as to progress and a utilization of opportunities.
Because the world is so complex and society is so mobile, it is hard to plan explicit and concrete progress on a large scale. That's okay--human planning has always fallen far short of the mark set by those who believe in planning. And when it does, and it usually does, we rely on our resilience. If we know ahead of time that our planning is likely to come up short, it doesn't mean we shouldn't plan. It simply means that we should begin to emphasize our resilience. Focusing on resilience--as opposed to only looking at threat and security--not only teaches us about resilience but also puts us in a frame of mind that encourages creativity and action in the face of threat. Emphasizing threat and pumping people for fear, on the other hand, encourages reliance on authority, learned helplessness, and "groupthink".
From an Understanding-level interpretation of the world, we can do our power analyses, risk analyses, etc. and try to problem-solve. But unequal power structures and risk will not go away. In order to take the next step towards flexibility and agency, we need to look at how to move beyond seeing the world in terms of competitive structures/positions and problems to be solved. How? This is simple. We need to encourage intentional experience of the things that drive us. What's more, rather than seeing those things, those drives, as problems, we need to find ways to see our basic and universal drives as potentially valuable. (I say "potentially" because I am a realist; the same drives, taken in a close-minded way, also move us towards fighting in various corners.)
How do we find these seemingly elusive opportunities, these perspectives on potential value? Simple. We look at which "selves" or what qualities others are trying to feel by what they do. We are all almost always trying for something better. We almost always interpret other people's behavior as selfish or incomplete in some way. And that combination allows us to see our own aspiration in comparison to other people's limitations. Psychologically, this puts us in the one-up position, gives us comparative status or moral power in our own minds. Other people are doing the same, and in the real world, our competing visions (when I believe I'm one-up while you believe you're one-up) lead us to conflict. What we can do instead of painting ourselves into that contested and shrinking corner is to start to see our interpretation of ourselves-as-good as a bad thing. This goes into all the humans-are-corrupt, ego-is-evil interpretations. Those interpretations also set up a shrinking corner where people compete to be seen as less-selfish rather than as good or worthy. Bleh, I say, bleh.
Another option is to start to see other people's motivations as affirming in some way, just as I experience most of my motivations to be affirming. This sets up an expanding space and an expansive mindset. What we look to do with this mindset, then, is to separate the limiting aspects of behavior from the positive aspects of motivation. In other words, we combine realism and affirmation while diminishing the assumption that being in a separating/separated one-up position (shrinking corner) is so ideal. I do the same thing for myself as for you. I look at what I'm doing, what positive aspect or self this behavior is intended to affirm, and I check whether or not it is actually supporting a playful self, able self, good and right self, a mature self, a true self, a beatific self, or a fruition self.
Part of what this method assumes is that I am willing to be "right" enough in my thinking and interactions to actually question myself. Usually, when other people question us in ways we don't want, we take it as judgment and threat of our precious corner. We feel cornered. That's a pretty consistent sign. If I feel cornered, I've probably painted myself a good ways towards a corner. In such a situation, someone else competing for that corner or pointing out how I'm limiting myself is secondary to whether or not I am actually painting myself into a corner. If I can't question myself, I have already cornered myself, put my spirit in a stranglehold. If that's what I'm doing, it makes little difference--although it can be distracting--if someone else comes along and tries to choke me!
We are all looking to experience ourselves as open, clear, and free. That is truly who we are and we fight against untrue expressions of who we are. But to actually grow into that freedom--the actual, real-world truth of that freedom--we must know ourselves as creative, able, good, and mature. As Shams of Tabriz said, "All lights are friends to each other." My true self is open to your true self. When I feel closed-off, that is not my light, not my true self. When that is how I am being, I have work to do. My opportunity, at that point, is to take responsibility for how I am feeling and what I am doing. Putting in the necessary work, at that point, is the genuine authentic expression that I want to be and express who I really am. I affirm my light.
Hasrat Inayat Khan said, "Everything in this world which seems to lack harmony is in reality the limitation of man's own vision." If we want to live the beatitude in that statement, we must be true to ourselves, true to each other, true to our world. To find the beatitude in that statement or this world, we must find how it is true.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Integrating Aspects of Self: Affirming Identity is Affirming Life
Okay--it takes a group, a society to affirm actualization of self-identity. Without social affirmation, we may be relatively transcendental in some ways, but it won't establish in a gross-consciousness way solidly. I know everyone is tired of numbers and categories from me, but there are four steps that need to happen in order for one's actualizing self to be felt, recognized, and fully established in one's gross awareness and social identity (which necessarily involves subtle experience).
1. Experience of various types of healthy self.
2. Expression of...
3. Social recognition of...
4. Social affirmation of...
When we invest individual psychological energy or intention into self-expression, it comes out in noticeable and distinct ways that have distinct feels to them. As we actualize, we learn to intentionally experience, express, have recognized, and take in affirmation of these ways of being. When other people's sense of us does not change, when affirmation and recognition are not forthcoming, we have a surplus of attention and potential that ends up stagnating (actually rejected at the point of expression in this case)--also in somewhat particular and distinct ways (which are, as always, affected by temperament, situation, and culture).
To describe these types of self in line with the levels and skills I've already laid out. The first type is that of me as a playful self. Curiosity and creativity are part of this. The second type is of the able self. Third is the good and right self. Fourth is the mature self. Fifth is what I feel to be true self (dhyana, flow). Sixth is beatific self. And the last could be called many things that refer to eternity, peace, purity, the sacred, saintly, etc. (We can also posit a nondual self, the expression [...etc.] of all these as non-separate.) I'll call that last self the fruition self, as one comes into fruition of one's personality and realization.
This also provides a concrete means of identifying what we feel is lacking in reference to individual experience. We all have the desire to be recognized as each of these things. For some people, those "desires" are not as strong and noticeable as impulses or instincts (like hunger or lust) so they don't necessarily feel those desires as salient, tangible, psychological things. Typically, what I feel most lacking is a general awareness and expression of true self. That is different from what I'd call the genuine momentary expression of self or the right-now-moment expression of genuine self. Sometimes I want to feel able and affirmed as able, so acting able rather than from a center or psychological "place" of dhyana is fine or fitting and genuine in that particular the moment. A different expression may be genuine at the next moment.
People feel pressure when they are called upon to act from a "higher" place than what they genuinely feel at the moment. (Invoking idealization and the demand characteristic involved in expectation is often counterproductive at these moments.) We may also feel disappointed when we are not recognized and affirmed where we are at. (Experiencing and overcoming some disappointment is probably necessary and unavoidable.) In this way, expecting people to act from somewhere they are not feeling, we encourage an inauthentic self by idealizing and expecting something other than what people feel. This idealization or pull method is different from a more organic or supportive "push" method. We may find role models and try to live up to them--that is an example of introjecting an ideal. If we pretend to achieve acting from that idealized place without actually making it, we will probably project grandiosity; but if we can't pull off the pretension, we feel shame.
When we support people in their genuine experience of self, they tend to look for progress at some point. People look to push, we look to improve things, to make things better. It's natural. That is like having a surplus of energy (action potential, priming). If we put that surplus into expectation and idealization, we'll also tend to project our ideals and feel disappointed by--and maybe aggressive against--anyone not living up to our idealizations. When our idealizations become entrenched and habitual enough, they become unquestioned and often even unnoticed expectations (hidden justifications for disappointment and aggression).
We deny an individual and their human potential when we expect or hope for something other than a genuine expression of self. But, since all of these types or aspects of self are universal, we can also deny their genuine self by idealizing and projecting ideals as unrealistic idealizations. When people are supported--put into a context and relationships where they are healthy--they will naturally aspire to a full experience and expression of their potential. When our aspirations fit our expectations and our actions, we are living as inspired selves rather than not living up to idealizations or projecting ideal selves. Since we have different temperaments, we will show different types of inspired selves that involve different degrees of the various levels (or types or aspects of healthy selves).
Honing attentional skills can help increase the efficiency with which one deploys attention. Applying one's experience as to when to push oneself to achieve and when to just be genuine is an expression of individual wisdom. I call the fifth type of self "true self" because it involves a return to clarity and what buddhists call anatta (roughly, "no-self"--the center of my six points of psychological balance). Aspiring to clarity is worthwhile and reinforcing clarity as an integrated aspect of self is also worthwhile. You were meant to be clear and connected; I was meant to be clear and connected. Feeling something other than that is an expression of some sort of ignorance or muddle--it's something less than what we want and deserve. Denying or projecting our genuine desires diminishes our chances of actualizing the potential that motivates those desires.
1. Experience of various types of healthy self.
2. Expression of...
3. Social recognition of...
4. Social affirmation of...
When we invest individual psychological energy or intention into self-expression, it comes out in noticeable and distinct ways that have distinct feels to them. As we actualize, we learn to intentionally experience, express, have recognized, and take in affirmation of these ways of being. When other people's sense of us does not change, when affirmation and recognition are not forthcoming, we have a surplus of attention and potential that ends up stagnating (actually rejected at the point of expression in this case)--also in somewhat particular and distinct ways (which are, as always, affected by temperament, situation, and culture).
To describe these types of self in line with the levels and skills I've already laid out. The first type is that of me as a playful self. Curiosity and creativity are part of this. The second type is of the able self. Third is the good and right self. Fourth is the mature self. Fifth is what I feel to be true self (dhyana, flow). Sixth is beatific self. And the last could be called many things that refer to eternity, peace, purity, the sacred, saintly, etc. (We can also posit a nondual self, the expression [...etc.] of all these as non-separate.) I'll call that last self the fruition self, as one comes into fruition of one's personality and realization.
This also provides a concrete means of identifying what we feel is lacking in reference to individual experience. We all have the desire to be recognized as each of these things. For some people, those "desires" are not as strong and noticeable as impulses or instincts (like hunger or lust) so they don't necessarily feel those desires as salient, tangible, psychological things. Typically, what I feel most lacking is a general awareness and expression of true self. That is different from what I'd call the genuine momentary expression of self or the right-now-moment expression of genuine self. Sometimes I want to feel able and affirmed as able, so acting able rather than from a center or psychological "place" of dhyana is fine or fitting and genuine in that particular the moment. A different expression may be genuine at the next moment.
People feel pressure when they are called upon to act from a "higher" place than what they genuinely feel at the moment. (Invoking idealization and the demand characteristic involved in expectation is often counterproductive at these moments.) We may also feel disappointed when we are not recognized and affirmed where we are at. (Experiencing and overcoming some disappointment is probably necessary and unavoidable.) In this way, expecting people to act from somewhere they are not feeling, we encourage an inauthentic self by idealizing and expecting something other than what people feel. This idealization or pull method is different from a more organic or supportive "push" method. We may find role models and try to live up to them--that is an example of introjecting an ideal. If we pretend to achieve acting from that idealized place without actually making it, we will probably project grandiosity; but if we can't pull off the pretension, we feel shame.
When we support people in their genuine experience of self, they tend to look for progress at some point. People look to push, we look to improve things, to make things better. It's natural. That is like having a surplus of energy (action potential, priming). If we put that surplus into expectation and idealization, we'll also tend to project our ideals and feel disappointed by--and maybe aggressive against--anyone not living up to our idealizations. When our idealizations become entrenched and habitual enough, they become unquestioned and often even unnoticed expectations (hidden justifications for disappointment and aggression).
We deny an individual and their human potential when we expect or hope for something other than a genuine expression of self. But, since all of these types or aspects of self are universal, we can also deny their genuine self by idealizing and projecting ideals as unrealistic idealizations. When people are supported--put into a context and relationships where they are healthy--they will naturally aspire to a full experience and expression of their potential. When our aspirations fit our expectations and our actions, we are living as inspired selves rather than not living up to idealizations or projecting ideal selves. Since we have different temperaments, we will show different types of inspired selves that involve different degrees of the various levels (or types or aspects of healthy selves).
Honing attentional skills can help increase the efficiency with which one deploys attention. Applying one's experience as to when to push oneself to achieve and when to just be genuine is an expression of individual wisdom. I call the fifth type of self "true self" because it involves a return to clarity and what buddhists call anatta (roughly, "no-self"--the center of my six points of psychological balance). Aspiring to clarity is worthwhile and reinforcing clarity as an integrated aspect of self is also worthwhile. You were meant to be clear and connected; I was meant to be clear and connected. Feeling something other than that is an expression of some sort of ignorance or muddle--it's something less than what we want and deserve. Denying or projecting our genuine desires diminishes our chances of actualizing the potential that motivates those desires.
Happiness
This is great. The first 9 minutes of this video of Seligman is pretty boring, but after that, the content itself is exciting. He breaks down happiness into a categorization that actually is fitting and applicable. This is the first top-notch psychological material I've seen on increasing happiness. (I'd set FLOW aside as not necessarily about happiness per se without being included/contextualized as it is here.)
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Back to Hierarchy
I've recently been reading CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE, and it's brought up the topic of hierarchical relationships through the lens of folks who are ready to follow unquestioningly or lead without consideration. There is something about the fear and closed mental state that go along with authoritarianism that may be the experiential antithesis of mindfulness--sort of a willed ignorance.
Acceptance lies between grandiosity and shame (the negative feelings associated with being either one-up or one-down in relationship). Mindfulness puts a bright edge on acceptance. With mindful awareness, escapism into exaggeration or avoidance can be understood and felt to be the denial of reality and denial of living that they are.
If one is always attempting escape, this life in this world appears to be a prison. If one is willing to embrace reality, the actual circumstances may not immediately change, and just "thinking positively" is like putting a dress on a pig. Mindful engagement, then, may begin as feeling like getting more intimate with a pig or taking a genuine interest in the characteristics of a prison cell.
The willingness to take an interest is the first step in removing contempt and dissatisfaction from one's life. Willingness is an invitation to authenticity. Authenticity couples with inspiration.
When our experience is based in authenticity and inspiration, rather than exaggeration and avoidance, we might find that there is room enough in this world for pigs and prisons and much, much more. But right now, at this very moment, am I willing?
Acceptance lies between grandiosity and shame (the negative feelings associated with being either one-up or one-down in relationship). Mindfulness puts a bright edge on acceptance. With mindful awareness, escapism into exaggeration or avoidance can be understood and felt to be the denial of reality and denial of living that they are.
If one is always attempting escape, this life in this world appears to be a prison. If one is willing to embrace reality, the actual circumstances may not immediately change, and just "thinking positively" is like putting a dress on a pig. Mindful engagement, then, may begin as feeling like getting more intimate with a pig or taking a genuine interest in the characteristics of a prison cell.
The willingness to take an interest is the first step in removing contempt and dissatisfaction from one's life. Willingness is an invitation to authenticity. Authenticity couples with inspiration.
When our experience is based in authenticity and inspiration, rather than exaggeration and avoidance, we might find that there is room enough in this world for pigs and prisons and much, much more. But right now, at this very moment, am I willing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
