Cultural Disorders

While different people have different ideals of health, the idiom of resilience has a built-in, pragmatic connection to reality. It is like health-in-relation-to-challenge. So instead of trying to define or find an ideal of health, I like to look at how to improve resilience--a practical understanding and standard of health.

When trying to learn a new set of concepts, it can be helpful to know what a new idea is NOT. So in talking about resilience, it can be helpful to differentiate resilience or health from disordering. Many of the characteristics of cultures that I talk about fall somewhere along a continuum between one unhealthy extreme and another. Some situations will call for actions that are not always in the center of the continuum. For example, in a culturally and ethnically homogenous country like Japan a few centuries ago, it would be appropriate to have less of a value placed on pluralism and diversity than in the America of today. In essence, then, as situations change, cultural values can change to help people adapt to their changing situations. The flipside, of course, is that we can institutionalize certain values while denying others and allow the culture within our society to fossilize. To the extent that individuals or societies are impressed with static or idealistic values, they will resist change. (An interesting point to return to later would be that every value can be thought of and acted out as a living process or as a static idea and ideal.)

Here's a partial list of cultural disorders:
Internal rigidity/immobility/caste (Hindu India)
Extreme homogeneity and/or xenophobia (early Japan, tribalism in general)
Rejection of diversity/multiplicity of values (almost all traditional societies and cultures)
Inequality of personhood (based on class, gender, race, religion, profession, intelligence, health, etc.)
Lack of interaction with other cultures (perhaps not a problem in the Kalahari, but becomes a problem for Amazonian tribes when the oil companies try to move in–whenever resources are disputed)
Overindulgence (upper classes everywhere, Portugal 14/1500s)
Apathy/fatalism/cynicism (communist bloc, 20th century)
Aggressive expansion (pick your favorite)
Ignorance (due to censorship or lack of educational opportunities)
Diffusion (lack of purpose/meaning due to loss of history or information overload)

What fascinates me is how many people have argued over which values or virtues are best, as if values and virtues are abstractions that have little to do with our actions. So for instance, a strong sense of tradition can easily become internal rigidity or xenophobia when it is allowed to be abstracted and exaggerated. On the other extreme, a valuing "progress" can lead into diffusion when progress is seen mostly in idealistic terms or as a rejection of tradition (1960s America). Further, while there are many influences that fed into the Baby Boomer's radicalism and Gen-Xers subsequent sense of diffusion, regardless of which causes we notice or which people we may want to blame, the cultural and social characteristics remain.

The ways in which societies retain cultural disordering are very similar to the ways in which individuals retain personality disordering. And, interestingly enough, although the ways which groups communicate and make decisions are somewhat different than the ways that individuals makes decisions and choose to act, overcoming cultural disorders can follow pretty much the same path as overcoming personality disorders.

Competition Versus War, Roles Versus Hierarchy

By commenting on the difference between a competitive situation and one where purpose is shared, I opened the door to wondering about the differences between intimacy and competition on one hand and then competition and war or violence on the other. This thinking follows the rubric of moving from intimate situations where we feel close to someone else on to situations where we relate socially based on power and status or roles and then on to situations where we must decide whether those we must face are either included in our sense of the in-group and those who are excluded altogether.

If we reverse this continuum, we must first decide (or, instinctually react as to) whether to include anyone as equals (include/exclude, animal or basic relationships). If they can be considered as equally human instead of as less than us, we will interact based on perceived power and status roles (social relationships). If we become closer than interacting primarily through roles, if we feel able to be ourselves more openly and authentically, more heartfelt, then we can speak of a realm of intimacy (private relationships). [Sometimes people operate in supposedly intimate or private relationships primarily through role relationships and reactive emotions and instincts, so we could say that close human intimacy has not developed.]

In the best sorts of relationships, we can mix business and pleasure, business and private sorts of interactions, role responsibilities and intimacy. But to do so, those involved must develop some sense of professionalism, respect for privacy or "boundaries", and also some agreement on when to act professionally or intimately. When the people involved are not quite mature enough for this, we separate business from pleasure or suffer the consequences. The question becomes one of when, or if, it is possible to mix business (role/status/power types of relating) with pleasure (and intimate means of relating). Therapy certainly crosses those lines.

Let's work outside in--from that inclusion/exclusion response to status/power/role relationships to intimate/personal relationships. The exclusion response occurs when we feel that the other party or parties involved are less than human, or not part of our group, or a threat to survival. This allows for eating meat, cruelty to animals, genocide, slavery, and on an individual level, rape and physical assault. Essentially, at this level, we are dealing with basic instincts. If we include someone as human or like us, we relate based on status, competition for power, and roles. Other social animals do this, too. Other animals are relating somewhat on emotions and somewhat on instincts, but humans also include the possibility of relating based on explicit social roles (other animals have differentiated roles, but ants aren't as conscious of this differentiation or as flexible in their ability to change their roles, for example). We end up with a complex mix of basic instincts, the ways those instincts relate with emotions, and also the ways in which our roles relate with instincts and emotions. Things get more complex as we move towards intimacy which is why it can be helpful to distinguish between complexity and complications. When we feel free to interact as the complex individuals we are, this feels very freeing rather than feeling complicated. And at the level of intimacy, we can include all instincts (although usually moderated), emotions (moderated), thinking (moderated), etc. without feeling competitive and without needing to put on a "role-face" (and be primarily professional).

These distinctions should make it clear that it is possible to have competition (between roles and types of status) without being at war. In essence, we still compete, like for that next promotion, but we agree to "play nice" (compared to lions eating male cubs, anyway). Furthermore, it is possible--however unlikely--that we can incorporate business and pleasure or our professional role relationships with our personal relationships. The better we are at all of this, the closer we can feel. War and dehumaninzation (exclusion) make it impossible to feel close, and professionalism alone (role relating without personal intimacy) makes it impossible to feel close.

Therapy fascinates me because it is a professional role that usually is expected to incorporate intimacy. In other words, few people would want Mr. Spock as a therapist. As a professor, maybe, but not as a therapist. That role simply does not fit his manner of relating. One difficulty for therapists, then, is that they inevitably mix business and personal relationships and feelings. As opposed to business associates deciding to strike up a friendship or friends deciding to strike up a business relationship, therapists' business is the constant management of roles and intimacy, the constant crossing of lines between what is public and what is private.

In this dance, clients have the right (a professional-level concept) to certain expectations of what their therapist will do for them. Most therapists have a desire to feel personally intimate with their clients, and indeed, if this feeling is shared, it is a strong aid to progress. And this leaves us with the conundrum of when to respond from a role-position and when to respond more personally. The situation is complicated exponentially when therapists cannot or do not formulate clearly what their professional role is. Even without this complication, this type of relationship is complex. But my relationship with my girl is more interesting for being complex...only we try to keep that happy complexity as uncomplicated as possible.

If you've seen mixed martial arts fighting, it is not so hard to distinguish between competition and war or malevolence. Two people step into a UFC ring, agree not to bite one another, gouge eyes, or punch balls--but otherwise proceed to batter one another until there is a knockout, a submission, or time is called. Since many of these competitors respect each other and the game, people don't get killed, hatred doesn't have much place (well, maybe somewhat for the fans), and we get to enjoy intense competition that is not war. Pretty clear distinction as long as people mostly follow the rules. Competition, not war.

In therapy, clients have a right to expect the expert (hopefully, the therapist) to take the lead in a noncompetitive manner. This calls for a particular skill that many professionals clearly do not possess and do not need to possess. While salespeople can get away with feeling competitive with both other salespeople and their own clients, while salespeople can try to "win" against their peers and their clients, it doesn't work for therapists to try to "beat" their clients. And yet, the peculiar difficulty to this type of relationship is that therapists must respond to expectations while I have rarely or never heard anyone speak about a client's responsibility in the relationship. How do we treat clients as social equals while supposedly having a greater expertise on intimacy? What can we expect or ask for from them as our social equals?

It seems reasonable that a client expect a certain degree of expertise from a therapist. It seems equally reasonable to me that a therapist expect a certain degree of civility from clients. And in moments where civility and expertise come together, there is an opportunity for intimacy, personal growth, and gratification on both sides. In order to do that, we simply have to recognize that there is a difference between an instinctual/emotional reactivity that is based on one-up/one-down relationships and an unavoidable equality between civil equals. In other words, we carefully set the situation and choose our moments so as to invite intimacy into unequal role relationships (therapist/client) that are based on civil equality (client/professional). The customer is not always right, but common respect allows for diversity of opinions and experience and expertise. In other words, the customer is never wrong in expressing what they want.

Psychological Resistance as Opportunity

Perhaps in furtherance of what I picked up in an internship at the VA, I've been thinking about how an understanding of strategy and tactics could help therapists. I'm currently reading Liddell Hart's book STRATEGY, in which he recommends strongly what he calls "indirect strategy"--which we know of, loosely, as "reverse psychology" essentially. (This comment is mostly one on attitude, but can be taken to a point of developing better understanding and techniques as well.)

One of the more difficult tasks that therapists supposedly face is the number and complexity of symptoms with certain clients. But this is largely a false problem when rapport exists, if we can expect that a client will return for the next appointment. Short of that being present, we are dealing in crisis management, not therapy. I don't know all that much about crisis management. Situational crises are analogous to fragmented personalities as well, so I am not really addressing issues such as schizophrenia, but this perspective may help identify when and how a stout ego--even if applied in apparent resistance to progress--can be a good thing.

The attitude shift I'm getting at comes from the realization that multiple goals allows one to adjust focus and techniques in such a way that resistance can be avoided, so I guess this is mostly a comment on difficult clients or difficult issues. The beginning of this shift (in terms of therapy) comes from recognizing the individuality of the other person along with their sense of threat. When we feel vulnerable, we are likely to feel threatened or pressured, reducing our ability to think creatively and increasing the likelihood and often the intensity of emotional reactivity. In therapy, clients often alternate between feeling threatened and soothed--both of these engendering low-creativity mind states, reduced agency. From my angle, I tend to be dissatisfied with simply soothing anxiety rather than increasing resilience and agency, and I think that idea is generally accepted, but I think many methods contradict that agreement.

The beginning of this shift (in terms of strategy) is a shift from a focus on superior force alone to a superior concentration of force. (Stick with me a few steps here, this makes ready sense once we arrive.) In boxing or war, we know we need to be prepared for both attack and defense--usually simultaneously. The best offensive strikes most often follow putting our opponent off balance, dispersing their defense while concentrating our offense. Hart highlights the idea, here, that in order to do so, it is very important to have multiple objectives. (This is where complexity comes back in, but as something that can support therapeutic goals rather than stress out therapists.) Just as it takes boxers or armies time to adjust their defenses--and they are vulnerable while adjusting--it takes people time to adjust their defensive mechanisms or resistance as they shift from resisting one perceived aim to another. That gap is rich with potential. When we have only one objective, our opponent can readily see where we are headed and align their defenses accordingly. When therapists find themselves caught in a head-to-head struggle, then, it is evidence of their own shortcoming.

Motivational interviewing addresses resistance by explicitly putting the focus on the client's motivation and allowing them the space to redefine the relationship as nonthreatening. The stages of change model provides multiple goals and also alleviates therapists' fear by outlining the process of change (reducing the "offensive" pressure).

The same force of will that is "resistance" in a conflictual relationship is "agency" from an individual or noncompetitive viewpoint. In these terms, then, the very idea of resistance as resistance saps a relationship of rapport and wears out anyone involved, reducing the force available for progress. Since clients cannot reasonably be expected to have a thorough theoretical background, this is always a shortcoming of the therapist when two conditions are met. The first condition, again, is that the situation not be a full-on crisis. Therapy as therapy does not occur during crises. Crisis management is called for, even if crisis management done well has therapeutic effects. The second condition is a workable degree of ego integrity. In other words, the ego must first be somewhat stabilized. Therapy as a talking cure--at least as is most often taught in training programs--is ineffective by itself when dealing with significant brain trauma, psychoses, and extreme drug effects.

Therapists wear themselves out by dispersing their own psychological energy or force, and clients do, too. Rather than diminishing force, progress occurs through an adequate application of force. So I'll define a therapist's realm of expertise as expertise in the excellent application of psychological force towards progress. (Since progress is constituted differently in various situations, I will leave "progress" undefined for now.) Essentially then, moments of head-to-head competition are healthy when we are playing or "exercising" (testing our strength). But otherwise, unless we are actually in a wartime situation, this application of force is stupid, wasteful, and unpleasant.

In fact, supporting someone's strength of agency comes from making explicit the availability of force and it's multiplicity of applications. In other words, when someone is willing to show us where they want to apply force, they show themselves. When we have multiple goals in mind--whether those goals are shared or not--we are able to use that knowledge to advance our goals. In war, those goals will not be shared, but in therapy, we can direct that force in whichever direction will gain the greatest progress rather than trying to railroad clients towards one goal. Whenever we feel "resistance", we are trying to dominate an opponent, and they are right to perceive it as so. This is where it can be incredibly helpful to have multiple goals; it is better to make progress towards a secondary goal than to lose ground or waste energy going nowhere in a stalemate. Similarly, crushing a client's "resistance" (sense of agency) is inappropriate.

The same understanding applies to education. While there may be a time and a place for dominating opponents, should that occur, we might as well be honest that this is what is occurring--at least with ourselves. Maintaining deceit or avoidance of reality also diminishes our available psychological energy--will and attention.

Updated Questionnaire

Here's an updated version of the questionnaire. I changed some of the questions in the hope of more directly addressing the topics I wanted to with each item.

Profile 4

These results are interesting for the similarity between (a) responses and (b) responses. Interpreting this set of results was a little different. Rather than trying to pick out what I thought to be most relevant from a large array of responses, this person chose which items there was a desired change for. Since it is relatively few, I don't have to do much sorting. We can get right to work.

E. Laughter, fun, curiosity.
1. 9,9
9. 4,7
16. 7,7

Rather than looking at straight scores, I focused on the differences mostly for this profile. Items 1 and 16 had no difference between (a) and (b). But within this set of three, that consistency is significant. This responder feels that they laugh more than most folks (rated as a 9) and are satisfied with how much they laugh (a:9, b:9). Looks like the picture of psychological health so far. But wait a minute. For the item on fun, there is a three-point difference. Is that a comment on oneself or the world? I can't answer that because my test item is not simple enough, but that needs to be addressed.

P. Avoidance, mental persistence, discipline.
7. 4,1
14. 7,4
17. 8,8

Well, it is rare to find people who are satisfied with their discipline. (As with most other profiles, I tend to begin interrogating sets of responses at this level.) This person finds their discipline to be satisfactory/perfect, but lists both other items at this level as differences of 3. On this set of results, there is only one difference of 4, so this is most likely significant (if my levels and items have any validity). For item 14, "Once I make up my mind, that's how it is," there is the desire to be less rigid. Maybe, then, discipline is working in a behavioral or action manner but it is harmful in a social, emotional, or motivational manner. Item 7, "I avoid thinking about anything that makes me uncomfortable," shows that there is more avoidance than desired. Certainly, these two responses (for items 7 and 14) are relevant to discipline. Are they relevant to changes in other areas that make this person uncomfortable? Is there a mental rigidity around desiring change in other areas or in admitting a desire for change in other areas? Probably.

U. Planning, intentional relaxation, complicated problems.
3. 8,8
11. 6,10
21. 6,8

Oh yeah. Here's our four-point difference. Number 11, "During work and at the end of the day, I am able to stay relaxed when I choose." Intentional relaxation is the single biggest desired difference listed in this score-set. While the numbers in this response set are unusual for what I've seen so far, this problem may be quite common. So far we know that this respondent is both more mentally avoidant and mentally rigid than preferred while seeing discipline as just right. Also, while laughing more than others, there is a desire for more fun in life. And the hang-up seems to be somewhere around intentional relaxation. This is different than distraction and all the bells and whistles our society provides, different than drugs and anything you can put into your body. This is about knowing how to relax when one chooses because one chooses. How much better would life be for all of us if we knew how to relax when we chose to? I know I don't have to mentally avoid (#7) anything I can be relaxed about. And I can also be mentally flexible (#14) when I can remain relaxed while paying attention to something.

Prognosis here is good. Diagnosis: lacking intentional relaxation. Here's the caveat, and it's a doozy. What happens to people who have been mentally rigid in a protective way for a long time? What happens when they do relax? Emotions come out. And since we don't need to protect ourselves and those around us from pleasant emotions, that means that unpleasant emotions are going to come out if this person learns intentional relaxation. The good news: you can handle it. The bad news: it probably won't be easy; most people don't avoid things they are already prepared to handle well. With as many responses where this respondent rates their self at where they would desire to be (10 of 21 times), it looks like the mental rigidity, when it begins to break down around self-identity, will unleash a...something. Maybe a drizzle, maybe a flood.

Three things need to happen.
1. Learn intentional relaxation techniques.
2. Expect unexpected sorrow, yearning, anger, blame, sense of betrayal, loss, shame, etc.
3. Recognize that this process may be old-school "cathartic" or it might be a walk in the park.

The comment written in for #14 was, "wish I was more willing to adapt". When people are able, they don't have to wish. In this situation, I would want two questions answered for me, "Why bother?" and then, "How?" My answer for why it is worth doing this is that it leads to greater appreciation and perhaps a greater sense of inspiration. The how part is more complex. Depending on the individual, there needs to be a mix of more or less social sharing, more or less relaxation and equanimity, probably exercise, increased communication skills (and effort concerning communication skills, I'd guess), and an adequate understanding of emotions--probably something more in the line of increased awareness and control of emotions rather than "sensitivity training". It's a type of control more like being on a sailboat than driving a tank. You can't control the wind and the waves, but if you have a sense of what you're doing, you can probably get where you want to go.

A real strength in this profile is #13: 10,10. Depending on the degree of emotional integration and mindfulness, these scores are usually a sign of inspired activity or good focus (with maybe only hints of inspiration or flow). Take this ability to concentrate and enjoyment of being immersed in difficult tasks and apply it to learning intentional relaxation and emotional awareness as the next difficult task. Make it something "to do". But it must be done in a new way. Since you've always felt able to be disciplined and follow through but you've also been able to avoid whatever you find too uncomfortable, you might end up learning a lot about relaxation and take the emotional stuff only for what is pleasant or relatively superficial/easy/comfortable. The real question here is one of how to do the personal introspection in one's own space while also opening up to other people to a greater degree and opening to one's own emotions to a greater degree. Emotions, from an evolutionary perspective, are ways for social animals to communicate and act in accord. When we close off certain emotions, we close off certain connections. When we open to those emotions and address them well, we embrace our potential for deeper, more loving, more interesting types of accord. Eventually, mindfulness helps, but for now--relaxation.

Profile 2: Second Verse

E: Overall, what if a person conceptualized their spirituality or summarized their spiritual path in a paragraph to complement the survey?
T:That's one way of going at it. I am considering giving people a few options to choose from so that there is a write-in section where people get to fill in the blanks. I was thinking about asking for two stories that show something you want to change about yourself, three that add to that picture that show what you are proud of, and two more that round things out. I think I'll have to ask about who gets more out of reading and writing versus who gets more out of actually telling their story in conversation.

E: In your commentary on part one, I'll confirm that it’s the comparative phrasing that I was aversive to. But that would give us something to talk about if we were in a follow up session. Or you could tweak the phrasing.
T:One of the things that really stands out with aspirations is idealization (you give an example below). I think there has to be both room for disagreement--which will involve some unpopular bubble-bursting on all sides--as well as actual grit, for traction. I'm wondering whether it is good to keep this phrasing because when respondents go so far as to remark on it, that's worth noting. It could mean a few different things, but it might be worth having that comparative phrasing. I have to think about it and get more comments from more people.

E: Given your commentary for the second section, are you saying that my lower Part “b” answers can be accounted for because I’m female? I would like to work on discipline; I feel I’ve declined from the level of intensity that I maintained two years ago; I see the effects in my career progress and my body.
T:I'd not go so far as to say "accounted for", concerning those Purpose level responses. "Affected by" fits--just as my responses are affected by my experience as a male/man. I think that women are more likely, based on social upbringing and probably neurophysiology, to need to make more of a point (on average) to work at improving at that level if they choose to. And they might be more likely to undervalue that level. Men seem more likely, based on social upbringing and neurophysiology, to need to make more of a point (on average) to work at improving appreciation and emotional integration (which can be significantly supported by mindfulness practice). Of course, your own experience is more relevant to you than any theorizing, supported by evidence or otherwise. Being on the fanatical side of intensity (for you) a couple years back gives you direct experience in where the center, the balance is...for you. To check on whether I might be right about the gender stuff, see if you can empathize and relate with guys you have difficulty connecting with by recognizing that they are simply sometimes operating from a reliance on discipline and drive rather than relying on intentional relaxation (that they probably have not developed) and mindfulness along with emotional integration. You might already be better at emotional awareness and speaking about emotions than they are; the midway point is shared understanding and intentional relaxation. There's a lot more to say on this subject.

E: With a smile, I can confirm that your commentary for section three is an accurate interpretation of where I’m at-- the forefront as an example is with my career path. I’m seeing a career counselor (tonight was our fourth session), and I’m allowing the ambiguity of whether or not it’s helpful or producing "results" and just doing the work. In general, spontaneity thinly veils my being arrested or procrastinating (but not due to laziness but fear) in “career” planning. Planning and stick-to-itiveness are skills I want to develop in this area. I am aware of possibility.
T:Yeah, the Purpose and Understanding stuff go hand in hand. Although, at the further level of Appreciation, mindfulness and being able to maintain equanimity in the face of ambiguity is really important, if it has a weak base, it will be weak or off-target. Plenty of people miss what spontaneity actually is by distracting themselves (okay, ourselves). That's a Purpose-level, immature defense mechanism. When my purported "spontaneity" involves mental avoidance, it's probably closer to impulsivity than authentic spontaneity. The planning needs to be built on healthy discipline if you want it to be consistent rather than simply intense.

E: Commentary for Section four is also accurate. I’ll confirm that rather than unaware, I am aware and easily overwhelmed (though leaps and bounds more balanced and equinimous than, say, five years ago). So rather than full-blown panic attacks and pulling out my hair, I can, even after freak out, try to direct my attention back to tracking anxiety in my body and thoughts. After 20 minutes of focusing on tracking, they start to disappear.
T:Yup. This is also where having a strong career path lends to a strong social identity--very foundational for one's self identity. And since we are talking about the maturation of self-identity (since actual self may already be whatever it needs to be), a strong self-identity allows for backbone and flexibility. Having a strong self identity and being able to communicate that to others without double messaging lets us figure out what we can and cannot do for others. So it looks like you're putting the pieces together. Actually getting a little more of the Purpose level and Understanding level stuff together will set up your mindfulness/openness to let you sort of unfold into inspiration. For many people, inspiration is like happiness in that, if you work for it directly, you won't get it; but, if you work for the things that support it, it seems natural, maybe even unavoidable.

E: Your commentary in Section five makes sense and is agreeable. In the past I would have disagreed and pushed (and probably did). I went through a 2 year period of mostly consuming/reading than doing. Now I’m doing and with some consistency. A lot of the reading is falling away, not as unimportant but not relevant or necessary. A lot of what felt mystical falls away and consistent skills and strategies remain. Consistent tools of mindfulness. So it makes sense that growing into/ exploring mindful appreciation would be a focus.
T:One of the biggest differences between me and most people I've heard talk about mindfulness is that I emphasize that mindfulness is the basis for consistent inspiration when it is applied as mindful appreciation. That mindful appreciation allows attention to easily flow into a sense of unhindered-if-still-directed inspiration. Social identity is very important. Monks and professional athletes, surgeons, etc., all have very strong roles on which to base relatively stable social identities--roles that encourage the sort of focus that leads to flow states. For the rest of us, we will have to decide whether our professional roles are strong enough to allow that sort of focus...or we might look for that sort of focus in other areas of our lives. The sufi saint, Rabia said, "I gave up teaching because it is easier to fly peeling potatoes." For her, the activity of peeling potatoes gave her that pinpoint focus. For others, teaching is really their thing. Once we experience flow enough, especially if we experience it in different situations, we can begin to accurately identify (not completely, but authentically) as flow. It is very inspiring to know this is in me, in potential at least in every moment. This inspiration is our human birthright and we all feel, if having a hard time admitting to ourselves, that settling for less than inspiration is demeaning to ourselves and a diminishment of the human spirit.

Now, that's a hard pill to swallow. If you're not consistently inspired, you are neither accepting your "natural" birthright nor furthering human culture. As my good friend Steven says, though, "Take your medicine." Most of us have some sort of ideal self, a sense of who we'd like to be. When we don't live up to that ideal, we kick ourselves for it. We can be brutal. Being consistently aware of just how often and how far we are from that ideal can be crushing, so most people find ways of hiding or smudging that awareness. So what do we need in order to be able to swallow this pill? Well, I've already said it but it bears repeating. In order to handle what otherwise would be the mental strain of that awareness, some people deny their ideals and others become workaholics or religious fanatics or whatever. Instead of those methods, I recommend incorporating: the playful exuberance we are born with; the confidence that comes with concentration, discipline, and a sense of purpose (our purpose as humans is to become inspired); the basis--not fortress or prison--of a solid understanding along with the ability to relax when our minds spin nearly out of control; the mindful appreciation of our situation as human beings with unlimited potential that comes with personal integration and acceptance of emotionality and mortality; and the clarity and inspiration that come of identifying oneself with flow, openness, freedom.

There is another Sufi question/story that I always remember. One guy asks another, "Why is it that God makes his saints to look like everyday people?" And the answer is something like, "So that you will learn to treat every one you meet as one of God's saints." The integration of these aspects of human potential into our everyday lives allows us to do that. Even without the integration, we sometimes stumble upon it anyway. Your pushing for more than mindful appreciation was both the sign that you have the drive that is necessary for "spiritual" progress and the "spiritual" desire for what is yours. Claim it. It has been wonderful to work with you and learn with you.

Profile 3 (2nd I'll interpret)

So this is from the third comment, the one I pasted from an email. All of the "note:" sections are from the respondent. The bold numbers following some of the answers are her ratings for the (b) answers that she listed as tens. For these numbers, 1 is her top priority rather than the higher numbers meaning a heavier weighting.

By this point, I am starting to feel very solid on what I want my items to address, so I may be ready to rewrite them after writing Profile 3.

1E. a. 4 b. 6
Note: This feels oddly competitive. Is there another way to phrase it?
9E. a. 4 b. 5
16E.a. 8 b. 10 (5)

Laughter, fun, curiosity. Yes, this phrasing is comparative. A Zen koan asks, "At the top of a 100-foot pole, what is your next step?" I am curious to know whether feeling oddly competitive about this item is a sign of a certain type of hesitation or just good feedback. Most of us learn to censor our emotional responses to such a great degree that the drive towards genuine spontaneity becomes part of what we need to untangle and express as adults. (I will certainly have to decide on whether or not to keep this unpopular phrasing.)

What stands out to me here is that the curiosity item, 16, is rated as much higher than those for laughter and fun. That tells me I probably need to look at my word choice. But a flag goes up, and I wonder whether this individual's playfulness has been pushed into the intellectual/verbal realm too much.

7P(R). a. 6 b. 8
14P. a. 3 b. 4 Note: Sounds pretty dang rigid to me. See George W. Bush for details.
17P. a. 4 b. 10 (9)
Note: I’m having a reaction to “everything”. What about “important” “critical”
”essential” or something. Or even – without discipline, very little is accomplished…

Mental avoidance, setting one's mind, and discipline. The responses to this section make me wonder about this person's sense of certainty. There's a negative reaction to the "everything" in "Discipline is everything", but not to the "anything" in "I avoid thinking about anything that makes me uncomfortable." Number 7, the item on avoidance is the only one that I would score in reverse--that I'd expect folks to not see this as a strength. (That may be another item on which I could improve the phrasing.) What's more, avoiding is not only ranked higher in the (a) column than the (a) scores for discipline and setting one's mind, but the only other (a)score that low is number 19: "I am very aware of my own emotions and others' emotions without feeling overwhelmed by emotions." Are my items phrased well enough here? Does this really mean that discipline and mental persistence and emotional awareness/equanimity are low while avoidance is high? Well, that is a question to ask directly. How much is this culturally supported out here on the West Coast, and how much of this is trouble differentiating decisiveness (yes, being the Decider) from rigidity? The response for #19 looks like evidence, but if this were Clue, I'd suspect without accusing...just yet.


3U. a. 7 b. 8
Note – this is a little difficult in terms of distinguishing how I think LIFE is, and how I think I am…..
11U. a. 6 b. 9
21U. a. 6 b. 9

Planning, intentional relaxing, and complicated problems. Uh-oh. More evidence. Dealing with complicated problems, 21(a), is listed as a 6. That's the second-highest (a) score this person was willing to claim consistently--other than the only 8, which concerned curiosity. Curious, willing to think about complicated problems, and good at mentally avoiding anything uncomfortable. We might have a strong mind here with a gentle soul. Gentle is fine, sometimes good, but I really wonder about centering, strength, certainty, and resilience. I've met fragile people who are surprisingly resilient, so that is not my first concern--decisiveness and persistence are. (The strengths part is coming up.)

5A. a. 7 b. 7
Note: This is interesting. I think in my case, I would prefer to feel that I am focused more on one thing at a time, or able to prioritize better, and multi-tasking less.
10A. a. 7 b. 10 (8)
19A. a. 3 b. 10 (7)

Multi-tasking, integration, and emotional awareness/equanimity. This note on 5 supports where I've been headed with this profile. That makes the meaning of #19 increasingly important; do you get a low score for awareness of emotions or for being easily overwhelmed? Prioritizing and decisiveness should be simple enough if one is willing to consider complicated problems without difficulty. But that avoidance thing comes back in. While a psychoanalyst might head in the direction of father issues and dominance/authority, we can instead look at familiarity with a focused state of mind and strength of focus. I'm not against that sort of historical psychoanalytic delving, but we have choices about how to address ourselves and our lives. Rather than running off to "confront" someone, we might confront mind itself.

The three (a) scores for this section have a wide range for this person's responses. Item 16 stands out from that group by a wide range as well, but that seems to be simply because of the safety involved with intellectualizing. There might be a very strong connection between this person's apparent lack of identification with the Purpose level and wide range of scores at the level of Appreciation and mindfulness here. Mindfulness may be somewhat lacking in potency if concentration is weak. Concentration tends to be weak when emotional certainty does not back it up.

Shift gears with me. When we compare the rankings of what she finds important right now (bold numbers following her other scores), we see the top four in the higher/subtler levels of Clarity and Nonconceptuality. We can also see that her Clarity level scores--6(a), 8(a), and 13(a)--are consistent and high. She rates only her curiosity as higher. This consistency is remarkable and certainly related to her high value on inspiration. There is also a very consistent rating of (a) scores through the levels of Understanding (#s 3, 11, 21) and Appreciation (#s 5, 10, and 19).

This profile, then, is light in the ass so to speak. It's also very hopeful. It looks like all the tools, except mostly concentration, are available for a comparatively inspired life. But to give that inspiration more staying power, it will take working on power.

The top priority, #20, "I can actually feel strongly that my soul is close to God," is listed as an (a) of only 4, low for this respondent. This probably shows some degree of idealization, of wanting to lean into something good and perfect, someone good and perfect and strong (perhaps inhuman and untouchable and therefore unassailable), as well as a significant sense of lack in that area. How much of this desire can be answered by knowing what one wants from oneself and others, knowing what is possible from/with oneself and others? (The comment for #12 (near the bottom) is very suggestive as well.)

That's probably enough for putting up on the Internet. The next step with this person is to find out whether she uses her meditation as avoidance-time for fluffy feeling-states and imaginings or for intentional relaxation (which would be helpful and enjoyable). From there, it becomes a process of figuring out how to toughen up without getting callous. With anyone who has a strong rejection of the Purpose level states, it usually takes kid gloves to find out in which ways they are willing to "take their medicine". It looks like the medicine here is all about gaining certainty by doing one's work, experiencing and affirming the positive Purpose-level feeling-states like confidence. It looks like there is only a little "misguidedness" to clear up--less about one more intellectual endeavor/distraction and more about feeling power.

6C. a. 7 b. 10 (3)
8C. a. 7 b. 10 (2)
13C. a. 7 b. 9

2N. a. 6 b. 10 (4)
15N. a. 6 b. 9
20N. a. 4 b. 10 (1)


4*. a. 5 b. 8
12*. a.xx b. xx
Note: Hmmmm – if God is everything, yes. But,I do believe there is evil and unkindness in the world. And misguidedness. I’m not sure how that fits in. I think that I prefer the definition of God as the ultimate good, and in that case, I would be a firm no on all action being done by God. But I don’t know how that fits with the 1-10 rating, either personally or where I wish to go…
18*. a. 4 b. 10 (6)

Profile 2 (first one I'll interpret)

This note is an interpretation of the scores and comments in Emily's "witty von wittington" response. Everyone who responded wrote in comments after a number of questions, and I expect that to continue as long as I use this type of questionnaire. Rather than trying to simply say that respondents are "at" some level of development--which makes sense to me only in the crudest way--I am interested in how individual people feel spirituality as well as how we express our different strengths and interests. Along with developing into maturity and perhaps actualization, our personal interests change as well. There are times when sitting in nirvikalpa samadhi is not nearly as appropriate as acting decisively--like when you see a toddler wandering into a busy intersection. So besides actualization being valuable, wisdom includes acting from sometimes "lower level" internal states (which can be measured as distinct from other, "higher" states). Rather than racing for the top or arguing over who/which is best, I am at least as equally interested in what fits, what works. I am invested in what makes myself and others unique as well as development. I'll cluster these responses by level. See if you can see how the three items for each level relate to one another. It might be worth taking one level at a time and considering whether it looks to you as if it does signify a significant developmental step. (Think about developing from a toddler to Gandhi or someone else you respect.)

1E. 7/5
Would it be too different of a question to write “I laugh as much as or more than most people I know”?
9E. 3/6
16E. 6/10
Laughter, fun, curiosity. These are all about unimpeded interest and exuberance. All mammals learn best through play and this feels good too. Mammals have more attention-energy than they need to survive, and this is expressed through emotion (which reptiles are limited in at best), creativity, and playfulness. When we don't have enough food energy to power our massive brains, we feel less exuberant and don't learn very well.

The difference in these responses may be due to how the questions in this section are phrased and/or due to differences in one's perceptions of strengths and personal interest. Is she less interested in laughter [1E:(b)5] than curiosity [16E:(b)10]? Or, more likely, she may not like the comparative phrasing--as her comment suggests--on item number one. For number 9, it's quite possible that she doesn't like rating ANYTHING as better than "anything else in the world", so I need to think about how I phrase my questions and how I introduce someone to the questionnaire in general.

7P(R). 4/1
14P. 2/6
17P. 4/5
Mental avoidance, mental determination/rigidity, and discipline. In most psychological circles, avoiding thinking about something is seen as a fairly immature means of coping. Discipline and rigidity fit a distinct internal state that can be very helpful or just as easily harmful. And most people are genetically predispositioned as well as culturally indoctrinated (relative between cultures) to appreciate or avoid this state. It seems that men are more likely to get stuck in this focused/driven/purposeful state of mind, but once women decide, they are often as easily able to stick to their purpose. In fact, depending on how great the distractions and obstacles, women may be more flexible and able to stick to a purpose. So this state has neurological underpinnings influenced by sex differences in the brain that have nothing to do with actualization. That means that this level or type of state can be beneficial to both men and women, but if we make mistakes, we may be more likely to make different mistakes. We stereotype "women's prerogative" and men's stubbornness as well as "fragile male egos", but there may be a fundamental neurological backdrop to these stereotypes. The mistake men may be more likely to make--fighting against their own testosterone (often somewhere around 25x what women have) and often being used to competing in explicit dominance hierarchies--the mistake of getting stuck in a ramrod state of mind. Along with all the social power and size differences between men and women, women's brains may actually be better suited to taking a lot in at once without getting locked in. So men may have more training in being mindfully aware of their situations and emotions while women may have to train themselves a little more in sticking to their chosen purpose (when it is fitting to choose one). From another angle, men may be more likely to get stuck at Purpose-level reactions while women may seem more responsive to whichever way the wind blows. This respondent lists low scores for the most part at this level.

Basically, the point is that it is helpful to be have each attentional ability at a high degree of competence wherever you start concerning genes, background, intention, and development. We often develop our ability (to stay focused on a single purpose at this level) to what we want to believe is an acceptable level for us. And we may find that a better level of competence is hard to work for. Without considering what is possible, we cannot decide on whether that hard work is worthwhile. Even if large groups of women would train towards competence and excellence with a different emphasis than large groups of men, excellence looks similar. We can see the argument for different emphases in women's criticism of hierarchical patriarchal systems within the meditative traditions. I do believe there are simply some things that women are better-endowed for training women and vice versa. Then there are also the things that are more difficult for different brains (of the same or different genders) that we simply complain about because they are difficult to do. Regardless of where we begin on any of these abilities, excellence is excellence.

By rating where we are at and comparing that to where we want to be, it is possible to look at what types of intention and training might be best for us as individuals. Some folks are happy enough with competence and they don't find the situation conducive to working harder. Men may try to ignore or else complain more about their wives' desire for greater awareness of the emotional situation and greater openness (which is a higher level ability). Complaining is a waste of attentional resources.

3U. 4/1
11U. 6/10
21U. 6/9
Planning, relaxation, and complex thinking. "Cognitive dissonance" and "tolerating ambiguity" are the watch-words for this level and type of mental state. We all know that too much complexity (rational, conceptual, understanding, etc.) driven by too much internal or external compulsive pressure (Purpose level) makes for poor thinking and stress. Think of test anxiety. In sports, we talk about having a "sense of urgency" (also Purpose level pressure) as being a good thing. The ability to intentionally relax allows us to moderate our stress levels when we are dealing with perceived pressure and conceptual complexity.

This respondent seems to value spontaneity [3U:(b)1] as well as the ability to relax [11U:(b)10]. I'm not sure, until she lets me know, if it is ironic that there are probably some obvious ways in which she could diminish the Purpose-level pressure in her life by looking at what she can plan better. It is possible--but not up to me to say definitively--that she may undervalue planning and the stick-to-it-iveness that comes from strongly valuing and training in the Purpose level (items 7, 14, and 17). It is possible that avoiding planning and sticking to obvious purposes in some areas may allow her to be more spontaneous more of the time without encountering the obstacles that avoidance allows to grow. Although that is very vague on my part, because I am unsure as to whether that is accurate or not, it is something I need to ask about. If we can consider her weaknesses in the space of possibility and potential, we can figure out what potential is most important to her right now as well as what is likely to be effective for her. And because everyone has different strengths as well as hidden strengths, working with possibilities benefits me as well. We can easily work on my weaknesses as hers. Staying with what is realistically possible allows us to bring our combined strengths to bear on improving individual weak spots. Profiling dialogically will helpfully aid in coming to a common understanding of what our relative strengths and weaknesses are. Good will or communion between us allows acceptance and appreciation of individuality. That's the next level.

5A. 5/8
10A. 8/10
19A. 5/9
Multi-tasking, integration, and nonjudgemental awareness of emotion. If we have a decent ability to relax when we choose (previous level), we are more able to face our complex world and complex selves. People mentally reduce situations in rigid ways when they are over-burdened; when we do that, we have a hard time recognizing viable opportunity. Besides learning to intentionally relax, we can benefit from mindfulness. And since no one really wants mindfulness to NOT add to our happiness or wellbeing, I speak of mindful appreciation. Appreciation and mindfulness together lend themselves to a more complete sense of integration IF THEY ARE PRACTICED WITHIN THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING. Supposed mindfulness--lacking a ready acceptance of emotional complexity--will likely become only a psychological ability to distance oneself. Because that distance is more comforting than distress or feeling overwhelmed, this is a fairly common problem. While that distance may be less harmful physically, personally, and socially than distress, it should not be seen as mindfulness. This respondent lists a strong sense of integration [10A:8/10] without claiming any great ability to multitask [5A:(a)5]. For 19, without knowing her, I would wonder whether she is unaware of the emotional situation or if she is easily overwhelmed. If she is unaware, we would want to work on emotional awareness and mindfulness--perhaps looking for a psychological block to emotional awareness. If she is easily overwhelmed by her awareness, that is very different. That would probably involve being willing to accept certain personal limitations for now and working on strengthening her awareness with the ability to intentionally relax. We might also have to work on how intentional relaxation is different than supposed "mindfulness" practice that would only encourage her to avoid her situation. Avoidance takes away from intentional deployment of attention, and I believe we are better off being able to connect our intention with our energy with our actions.

By the different scores in this section, we can see that she values this type mind-state or level of development [(b)-scores average 9]. We might also be able to lean on her sense of integrity or comfort with "don't-know mind" while improving concentration or memory for multi-tasking and relaxation or awareness concerning the emotional situation. Because she lists her (a) responses as comparatively low at the Purpose level, that may signal for a focus on how concentration (the attentional ability gained and developed at the level of Purpose) needs improvement. We should at least run down that possibility.

6C. 6/10
8C. 5/10
13C. 6/9
Inspiration and vitality, clarity, and flow or "the zone". This state and stage are probably best described cohesively by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in the book called FLOW. While I'm not sure if he makes enough valuable distinctions, his presentation is by far the best picture of this level I have seen. At this level, we are starting to feel a great deal of clarity and freedom, which is very inspiring. We continue to improve our differentiation between a fairly rough-and-ready type of ecstasy, like lust, from a lighter feeling of bliss. If we do not pay attention to this distinction, because of the blissful influence, it is easy to get "stuck" in the habit of chasing excitement. It is helpful to emphasize the value of the mental and emotional clarity and freedom rather than the excitement. It is also helpful to continue with our mindfulness practice so that we can enjoy the excitement--mindfully rather than in an addicted manner.

Because it seems to me that there is a lot that can be done with this respondent at the level of Appreciation, my tendency would be to focus there. I want to introduce the idea of mindfulness being the basis for consistent inspiration and introduce aspects of Clarity, but working into Clarity would not be my primary objective unless I have misread the results. When the lower levels are sufficiently healthy in our lives, peaks into higher levels are much more likely to occur spontaneously. As we develop--if we are able to establish these levels in our lives as healthy cycles or habits--the desire for more that is so quintessentially human leads us upwards, pointing to increasingly subtle and perhaps powerful domains. But if those domains are preferred over things such as food, sleep, and good relations with the people around us, we fall into using spirituality or consciousness as a drug. This demeans both the value of where we are now as well as the aspirations towards authentic spirituality. Further talk about the higher levels would be mostly conceptual rather than being "filled up" by personal experience. There is enough to appreciate with where we are now and no reason to fear that further growth is unlikely. The conceptual discussion of higher levels may be helpful, but I would not want to suggest a specific religious--or nonreligious, for that matter--interpretation of those levels. At the point we are primarily discussing conceptions rather than predominantly personal experience, my impact shifts away from consultative to educational. In my experience, it is much harder to determine whether extra education is more helpful or distracting and depends heavily on the individual.

2N. 6/10
15N. 6/10
20N. 5/5

4*. 4/4
12*. 5/5
18*. 4/4

Profiling Updates II

Now that I've got a few full responses, it may help to both interpret individual responses and also compare these different friends' reactions. Since I know the three people who have sent me responses so far, it is similar to having a normal psychological assessment/introduction to them. Because we are all so incredibly complex and growing, this doesn't make me feel much more or less confident in my responses or the system I apply. I am relying largely on the system and largely on the dialogue. Without dialogue, no system of interpretation is meaningful.

The first item I want to address in this note is presentation. This blog page format is clearly not the easiest to work with. Kristin found a web-place to put together online surveys, and we may eventually translate to that format and link there. I personally tend to prefer paper, but this got the ball rolling. We'll look at taking the format further after next week--when I'll be consulting with a few peers in person on what specific improvements to make. Hopefully, my online interpretations will give them food for thought before then. Much of what I normally include in my interpretations will necessarily be censored in the interest of anonymity. Essentially, then, these interpretations may be somewhat bare-bones but you all can imagine me asking some very personal questions and taking my person-to-person responses a couple of levels deeper/closer.

The second thing I want to address here is the question: what do the letters following the question/item numbers mean? They simply help me remember which items supposedly relate to which levels of experience from "E" Exploration/Creativity/Play through "P" for Purpose to "*" signifying Abiding. I can't see any reason to keep these letters on the final form, but I may decide to cluster the questions for each level together.

Profiling Updates

With the way I asked this so far, it is too normal to rate where you'd want to be on many of these items as 10s. It might be helpful if I had asked for a 1-100 rating (instead of 1-10) with no repeats so that all these things end up prioritized in comparison to one another.

Other items it might be helpful to include: intimacy, focus/distraction, willingness/flexibility, liberation from “shoulds”, enlightenment, flow, confidence, sexual freedom/happiness, centeredness/nonfragmentation, nonattachment, sense of personal connection, ecstasy/bliss/transcendence, compassion, reduce reactivity/”thinness”.

Let me know if you come up with other questions that seem really relevant or if any of these other items should be included.

Hopefully, I'll have this beyond a rough draft within a week. Thanks for the feedback so far!

Spiritual Profiling: the Questionnaire

The following is a relatively simple set of questions, but it may take some time to finish. This is more about what you want than where you have been, but history and experience are very important in being able to answer.

Answer each statement with a number between 1 and 10. There are two ways each question should be answered, so for each question, you will have two answers. You may want to note them something like "1a" and "1b". One of the statements is, "Peace is everything." The first response is to show how much you believe that fits you as you are or how much it fits life as it is. The second response is to rate how much you would like that to be so. (If peace means everything to you, but you don't always feel peaceful, your answers may be 1a:3, 1b:10.)

These questions are directed at measuring attentional abilities that can be defined in neurophysiological terms, cognitive science terms, and through various meditative traditions. Once we have a somewhat personal picture, we can direct that somewhat vague measurement towards specific personal progress. The attentional abilities I refer to are: exploration, concentration, relaxation, mindfulness, inspiration, harmony, and serenity. Although serenity seems more like a psychological state than an ability, attaining serenity is an ability that can be practiced and improved. So we can see that attention is important, but intention is also central. For those interested, a personal explanation of these abilities may be more helpful than a conceptual or abstract explanation.

Please feel free to write in comments concerning any individual item along with your answers for that item. At the end, if you like, tell me what you think of the questions as a group or what you felt might be missing.

Here are the questions.
1E. I laugh more than most people I know.

2N. As much as any emotional feeling, my internal experience is characterized by a sense of openness.

3U. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

4*. Peace is everything.

5A. I am able to multi-task without getting lost.

6C. I am inspired with the simple feeling and energy of being alive.

7P(R). I avoid thinking about anything that makes me uncomfortable.

8C. My heart and mind are clear.

9E. Fun is better than anything else in the world.

10A. I have a strong feeling that everything fits together even when I don't know how.

11U. During work and at the end of the day, I am able to stay relaxed when I choose.

12*. All action is done by God.

13C. I enjoy losing myself in difficult tasks that I am really good at.

14P. Once I make up my mind, that's how it is.

15N. I am always aware of a vast freedom in life.

16E. I love learning new things. People think of me like Curious George.

17P. Discipline is everything.

18*. A still mind is the greatest gift or possession.

19A. I am very aware of my own emotions and others' emotions without feeling overwhelmed by emotions.

20N. I can actually feel strongly that my soul is close to God. (Not applicable for anyone who does not believe in God.)

21U. It doesn't bother me to think about problems that are too new or too complicated for me to understand.

Spiritual Profiling: Your Profile

I have a system, but no one completely knows someone else's profile. Because it's a good system, it allows for privacy and dialogue. We can all improve in our openness to exploration, our concentration, understanding, appreciation, clarity, nonconceptual awareness, and sense of abiding. Because I'm not you, I don't know where you want to begin, what you're strongest and weakest in, how fast you want to and can go, etc. But I have studied the obstacles to this type of growth and also the types of training that make people strong and capable.

Rather than presenting myself as an expert on what anyone needs, I have tried to formulate an approach that allows disagreement and encourages criticism right from the beginning. I know, perhaps better than anyone, how much unfulfilled potential I have. That makes me both proud and humble. It also makes me open to improving everything I can about what I do. So I love criticism.

Rather than laying out any quick-fix techniques, I've worked to formulate a self-driven sense of lifelong development. Since I've still got more years to live, I'll be improving my approach as I go. I'm working on a questionnaire that breaks down the benefits one gets from various attentional abilities into about thirty questions or so. Each question wants two responses. The first is a rating from 1-10 on how important each benefit is. The second is a rating from 1-10 on how good you already believe you are at achieving that benefit. I'll post it when I get a chance.

Questions? Comments? Jokes?

Spiritual Profiling: the Gift of Love

Lorna Smith Benjamin has been working with suicidal clients in Salt Lake City for something like 25 years. Last I heard, after decades of working with some of the most unhappy people on earth, she only had one client commit suicide. Those results are astounding.

She has a very unique way of looking at unhappiness. Her basic idea is that people are unhappy when they are not allowed to give the gift of their love. They make attempts to share what they feel is best in themselves with others, and those others refuse it. The closer we want those people to be, the more it hurts when they refuse. That's the gist. Unrequited love.

So far I've piled up a few problems, especially: toxic situations, lack of education concerning attentional abilities, lack of training, and unrequited love. Notice none of these problems look like they cannot be addressed. But, just as we have little common knowledge concerning training our attention, we have little awareness of all the ways in which our unhappiness can be seen as coming down to unrequited love. (Check Smith Benjamin's books or website for more of an explanation of how that works.)

I've already said or hinted that we can all get better by improving our concentration, noticing certain tricks that our minds play, developing or maintaining some degree of equanimity with one another, presenting problems in ways that suggest solutions, and improving awareness concerning feelings. I've mentioned the first- and third-person approaches to, or perspectives on, spirituality. And the second-person type of spirituality fits really well with this idea of love.

The second-person approach to spirituality is dealing with "you" as spiritual. It's about how we deal with other people, beings, and our planet as spiritual. And like Rumi, we can seem to speak directly to God (You) whether we see God in everything, in nothingness, or as somewhat separate, beyond, or above. One of the happy eventualities of my focus on first- and third-person types of spirituality is that my system does not prescribe HOW you SHOULD feel divinity as personally existent. I see that as only my business if you want to make it our business, if you include me in the "you"s you address concerning spirituality. This is part of my respect for equals. I assume that you are enough of a human person to have an individual-yet-connected relationship with God if such things exist, and you are enough of an individual-yet-connected person to have a feeling of direct connection with spirituality if those other things don't exist. In other words, your religion is yours and your spirituality is pretty much yours if you don't want to include me. I respect that. I don't want anyone trying to force me into a burkha, and as far as I can tell, I still like pork.

But it is also part of my feeling that I want to be able to love anyone I come in contact with. This isn't something morally good about me. I think it's basic to who we are, like having eyes and skin. Part of why we need some degree of psychological and spiritual strength is that we've all been given strong emotional reasons for pulling back our love, for withholding. Freud made anal retention a commonly used concept. What do we call love-retention? We say, "That's life, c'est la vie." I disagree with that sentiment, though. I say that's death. It's emotional death to not love. And hatred is just love's crippled cousin. Hatred lives, but when it lives within us, we are maimed.

I say this to show what spiritual profiling is. It includes at least two directions. The first is the sense of personal growth through appreciation and inspiration and perhaps onto something like serenity and enlightenment. The second is the removal of obstacles to the occupation of putting all of our energy into that movement. In other words, many of us have to heal before we can fly. In doing so, we don't need some imperious person telling us why we're weak of what is wrong. We need healing. Some of us need to connect with others first. Some of us need time alone. I don't know what any other person needs completely, and I don't try to tell people how they should believe or feel towards others or towards divinity. I offer training.

Spiritual Profiling: Trained or Untrained

Your tastes, abilities, and experience are vastly different from mine. You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. We may all have similar descriptions of what inspiration can feel like (see the book FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience), but it takes different things at different times to get us inspired. At one moment, you come home from work and simply want to fall onto the couch with someone you love and be held close. At another moment, you want the challenge of a difficult game: chess, basketball, ultimate fighting, cards, whatever. And at another moment, you simply let your mind drift into the natural beauty of the mountaintop or forest.

Some people don't actually get high on the things I get high on. It's hard for me to understand that, but I know it's true. Some people love stuff that I also can't understand, that I have no feel for. Sometimes I can learn to appreciate what they do but sometimes not. Over the last fourteen years, I've been focused on how people learn to appreciate and what influences meditation can have on how we live. I don't know if meditation can be considered a normal or "natural part of who we are, but it is done in some form in every culture. The simplest way is to just breathe deeply and let your stomach relax. Contemplation and prayer are similar ways of being more intentional and sometimes more self-aware than we tend to be in our daily lives.

My focus has been on what Wilber has called the first- and third-person approaches to spirituality. I have been very curious about meditating and what I can experience within myself or as myself, checking out what it might mean to say that "I" am spiritual. That's the first person approach. The third person approach has included a curiosity concerning evolution, the human body and nervous system, brain states, the influence of different chemicals, etc. For the most part, I have set up a system of understanding that focuses on these first- and third-person perspectives. That has allowed me to sidestep all of the arguments concerning which tradition or culture is best. So rather than speaking in terms of values or preferring one religion over another--since all expressions of religion are deeply rooted in separatist types of cultural traditions (due to historical societies separating themselves from the global university of humanity)--I try to speak about attention.

No society or historical culture has cornered the market on attention. In fact, while many argue over whose God is best or whose values are best, attention is often largely ignored by religious folks. Surprisingly, attention is also only considered secondarily in modern educational systems even though psychiatrists and psychologists are willing to diagnose Attention Deficit Disorder. As far as I can tell, attention is fundamental to learning anything. And yet we don't teach people how to improve their attention directly. Most often, we teach various topic subjects and simply HOPE that kids will improve their attention along the way. When I was in middle school, we joked about some kids just carrying their texts around without opening them as if they thought they might learn something by osmosis. Teachers liked to use that joke. And yet, no teacher that I had directly taught how to improve attention, as if they thought we would simply pick up attentional skills by osmosis.

I had never heard another person use the phrase "attentional abilities" before I started using it with friends and fellow students. It's probably been used somewhere, but it's not commonly used. Even more crazy to me is that I have rarely if ever heard people speak about improving attentional abilities.

Attention is an important idiom, then, because it is not claimed or owned by any particular culture. It's not a "Western" cognitive science concept because it's been used in Asian cultures for millenia. It's not an "Eastern" idea because it has been studied for decades by neuroscientists working in a "Western" scientific paradigm. At least, it was described as "Western" during the postcolonial decades of the latter half of 20th century. As if experimentation and learning in humans did not originate in our common ancestors in Africa. Just as every culture has something to add concerning how to train attentional abilities, every one of us has our own experience of attentional abilities and limitations. In other words, you already know what I'm talking about even if you haven't used these terms and phrases before. You've already felt your attentional abilities, including some of your limitations.

Contrary to the medical-based terminology, there is no such thing as a deficit in attention. Attention is never not happening in some way until you're dead. But it's interesting to think about it. When you dream, you pay attention to dream sequences. People knocked unconscious and in comas even have accurately reported what has happened around them when they were "unconscious". There is even an interesting example of consciousness in deep, dreamless sleep from Advaita Vedanta. In other words, consciousness has different forms or qualities at different times, but since it is always there throughout your life in some way, it cannot accurately be said to be deficient. (Consciousness and attention may be somewhat different, but maybe not. We'll leave that for later.)

Because attention always apprehends something in some way, and because it seems that mind (as a metaphysical category, I suppose) always moves, we can say that our attention is deficient in certain ways, but we are never actually lacking attention itself. It is hardly reasonable to say that students who are uninterested in some topic that they aren't paying attention to are deficient in attentional skills. They are skillfully paying attention to something else, even if that something is only daydreams. The social situation is agreement-deficient in such a case, with teachers assuming (for no good reason I can discern) agreement and then perhaps diagnosing a deficiency in concentration on their chosen subject. Perhaps we could say that the students are deficient in interest or involvement.

Having said that, many people are diminutive in their ability to maintain concentration. Lots of factors can play into this, but we've all had times when we have been unable to concentrate. Some people seem born with an innate strength in concentration, while others are apparently born with relatively weak concentration. If we do not teach and practice concentration, we have little to no grasp on how much of concentration is innate and what can be learned. (So I don't disagree with the actuality of ADD even if I'd call it something else, but we're only beginning to sort out where folks are weak in concentration and where our society is weak in being able to teach concentration. ADD may be largely--certainly not only--a deficiency in social flexibility teaching competence.)

ADD is an excellent example of why I talk about intention, self-awareness, and meditation in terms of attentional abilities. Just as we may have a hard time maintaining our concentration on grammar, most of us have a hard time maintaining our concentration on retaining a certain amount of equanimity in dealing with others, a certain feeling of generosity, or even the avoidance of feeling irritated. MANY adults feel themselves, and sometimes their friends, to be more mature than most other people. Isn't that curious? We often believe that other adults simply do not have the maturity to handle adult-type interactions, and because of their lack, our own lives are made more difficult or less satisfying. This is possible through an interesting trick of the mind that is no more than a simple trick once you see it. We see it in others as they convince themselves of something that isn't true. We might even notice it in ourselves. And it is only possible through a certain deficit in concentration.

So another point about attention is that I don't have to describe someone in ethical terms (as over-proud, self-righteous, etc.) in order to describe their faults in a way that allows progressive change. Because my mind plays the very same trick on me (I remember where I do well and where others don't more often than not), I can actually benefit from people helping me notice when it happens. We can act as if our minds doing this naturally is some form of evil in humanity, or we can be curious and amused by it. And once we recognize anything concerning how we deploy and experience our attention, we can do something about it whereas if we are inherently evil that is harder to address.

I'd say that if adults cannot learn enough concentration to maintain a degree of equanimity within themselves, they have little place to criticize kids (that's the same old mental trick). The functional question in all of this is: how do we do it? Because I've phrased the problem in attentional terms, an attentional solution lends itself to the problem. I've briefly listed what I see as the significant developmentally-outlined attentional abilities here.

Since we cannot "see" our own subconscious clearly, we may not be able to say correctly in which abilities we are most lacking. We may know what we are strong in, though. The interesting thing for me is that, since we are all complex human beings, if we are too deficient in any of these areas, we will not only be somewhat unhappy, but we will also create social problems for ourselves. The unfulfilled desires that lead to unhappiness are the personal or internal signs of unfulfilled potential, and the social problems we are a part of are the social or external signs of that same unfulfilled potential. Why do I say this? Because inspiration is your birthright and creating inspiration is an ability.

In the movie, "Man on Fire", Denzel Washington's character makes the point that there is no such thing as being tough. "There is only trained and untrained." If you haven't felt inspiration to be a significant part of your life, it doesn't mean that you are evil, broken or weak. You are either trained or untrained.

Spiritual Profiling: Respect Between Equals

Chances are, if you preach at me, I won't listen. I'm not looking for a preacher. And since I'm talking about dialogic aspects of communication, when I flip that sentiment around, I can hardly expect someone else to listen if I'm going to be preachy. This fits with Lao Tzu's point in the Tao te Ching that there is no such thing as "moral high ground". Essentially, even if your position is right, but then you feel like you're better than someone else because of a position, you ruin the moral authority in the position by mixing what's right with your own hubris. Same goes for me.

At the same time, you're better than me at a lot of things, I'm sure. I don't even have to know who I'm talking to to know it's true. I may not already know what you're better at than I am, but if we get to know each other, we'll find things. Flip that around, and I can walk with a certain amount of humility-pride because I know I'm probably better at something than everyone I meet. It's not modesty or a put-on show. It's simultaneous pride in myself and in humanity as well as humility in knowing that, as another amazing human being, you must also be better than me at something. So there's no point in hubris but enough pride for everyone. Part of why that's important is that, since I know my own strength, I don't have to try to exploit your weaknesses so as to look comparatively good; I can just find the areas I excel in. Beyond that, if we can agree to communicate like reasonable adults, chances are that we'll actually be able to learn from each other and improve due to our relative strengths (and weaknesses).

All that is pretty simple, but it's also rare to find adults who actually want to interact with each other this way. We get all caught up in comparative status and trying to clutch some little pride that we often miss seeing the ways in which we can grow. When we only want to compete, then pointing out where others slip up is an attack. But if I can actually take any criticism as a chance to grow in some particular way that I need to, then there are no attacks beyond physical violence. We still might compete, debate, challenge one another--but there aren't any attacks per se.

Where I was raised, this was called "being the bigger man". As kids, we often tried to claim that we were bigger men than someone else. But as we came to understand this phrase better, we knew that it involved not acting like we were bigger. Somewhere around there, it started just seeming like being men. Since I also appreciate women who don't try to act like men, we can speak of acting like adults.

I may seem to have gone far afield from spirituality to anyone familiar with my general focus on formlessness and samadhi. Maybe that's a sign that I'm growing up still. I'm becoming more and more interested in the process of moving towards those peaks rather than simply focusing on conquering the mountain, so to speak. There is a riddle or teaching question asked by the Sufis: why does God make his saints to look like everyone else? The proposed answer is: so that you will treat everyone like saints. I've got to admit, I'm not there yet. But getting there fascinates me.

It's also been said that before you can walk, you have to learn to crawl. That seems to fit psychologically and spiritually. Wherever we start from, we first get moments of how we want to actually be, then the effort it takes to stay aware of wanting that, then the discipline of giving up our emotional reactivity in particular moments in order to be mature, and perhaps we eventually gain a certain willingness to roll with the punches without giving up on our aspirations.

Because of how our minds work, aspiration feeds our motivation to overcome adversity. Adversity gives us the psychological and spiritual pressure it takes to gain the strength it takes to be able to hold onto and communicate what we gain. "Only the tested can inspire the fearful." We all benefit from the wisdom and experience of those who have already fought the good fight. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice in their fight, as well as those who have lived to fight another day. Folks who have overcome adversity feed our aspiration. Anyone who has overcome adversity knows something about the strength of intention. Anyone who has faced adversity and temporarily lost could have some aspiration for improvement along with some experience to build from.

The reality of human life is that it all gets jumbled together. We can't separate out the moments we shine from those where we stumble. It's all me, all one. (If you feel otherwise, stick around, Grasshopper.) And yet, I love the Muslim focus on Judgement. Their idea, if I understand correctly, is that everyone will face God on their day of Judgement and every single thing they have ever done will be weighed and measured. All of what they have done correctly will be weighed against every single sin, and their actions, thoughts, and feelings will either lead them to God's grace or punishment.

It's very liberating to say that it's all one. And at the same time, I also know that every time I practice doing what I believe is right, it feeds that sense of rightness within me. Every single time--no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential--I feed my weakness and iniquity, it grows stronger within me. How other people act affects me, but they are judged in their own way. How I respond to them and affect them influences what I feed within myself. Perhaps there is some ultimate judgement on a given day, but I doubt it. It makes more sense to me to believe that this lifetime is my "day of Judgement". I already am punished by feeding the shit within my soul and spreading it around me. I already am rewarded by acting right and knowing when I do. Maybe it all comes to a metaphysical head, but whether it does or not, it's the same to me. (If you don't believe in judgment or karma, have some kids, and see where they are when they reach forty or so.) Because that is the case for myself, I am willing to learn to crawl if I must, but I'll be damned if I'll keep myself from learning to walk.

Being who I am, though, I may need some help along the way. I'm not looking for some guru to be God for me. Just as I'm not writing for those who want to be only beautiful and fragile, I'm also not writing for those who are looking for moral escape. They will get what they get. I'm looking to find others who want to improve and I'm looking to contribute what I can. I'm looking for others who feel the same, who feel equal in that aspiration.

While anyone can claim such a standpoint or motivation, communicating it needs some form, it needs to actually happen. The question I've been asking is: what is a good way for me to share what I know and can do? When I flip that question around, assuming I'll be communicating with spiritual equals, I ask: what is a good way for us to contribute what we can know and do with and for each other? The question takes that somewhat complex form because I will need something different than what anyone else needs. Sure, we all need love and support, food and air, etc., but if we are to recognize and uphold our individual potentials then we will need to find our different tastes of inspiration.

Spiritual Profiling: The Beast Lives

Nothing that can be said to be spiritual can be inanimate or dead. The beast lives. And just as spirit may not be limited to any form, still, for us to feel "spirit" or "spiritual" there must be some touch, some tangibility, and therefore some form. To that end, it can be helpful to share some common assumptions. Also to that end, it helps to not see any of us as limited to those assumptions. Not only, then, does my understanding of the process need to move forward, but the dialogue must as well. Just as those who saw the Great Depression moved beyond the Great Depression, we will move our dialogue beyond those basic assumptions and yet remain somewhat shaped by those assumptions.

This is very important. If we include the expectation of change right from the very beginning, then it may turn out that the followers are actually leading and vice versa. It may be that we'll find that a beloved basic assumption becomes the greatest obstacle to further progress. In other words, everything is up for grabs. When that is the sort of situation we face, how can we know we aren't just flapping around like a fish out of water? How do we know we aren't flopping further and further from our stream the harder we try?

When there is no way to be sure that up isn't down and left isn't right, when quantities may turn out to be the opposites of what they first seemed, we might still be able to rely on qualities. I may not know where I'm going, but I might know if I'm moving fast. I may not know if I'm fast or slow, but I can say whether it feels right. This is a different way of seeing things and making decisions. It can seem so complicated as to be impossible or so vague as to be ineffectual. In other words, it still needs a foundation, or we could say a vehicle. So I'll give a comparison or two.

The guru traditions basically send the message that you must give up everything you used to know (the sky is blue, grass is green) so that the divine wisdom of the guru can set you straight (the sky is you, the grass is grass). In other words, we give up our normal way of knowing things and simply replace it with someone else's. Wouldn't that be nice? But until Jesus obviously returns, I still havent' found that enlightened of a guru. Or maybe I'm just a skeptic. Other "expert"-type paradigms abound. "Listen to the physicist who knows physics more than you, follow your President, eat your peas", etc. All of these sorts of approaches are of one paradigm: something outside of you knows better--at least for now--than you do.

I'm willing to admit that physics experts know more than me, but most physics experts--while they may be somewhat arrogant about their intelligence and learning--don't claim that I should give up all of my worldly possessions and follow them because they are my moral superior (so they're different from gurus, better in a way). I appreciate that about anyone who does not equate power with betterness. More power means more potential for damage or corruption, so rather than looking at quantities as my reference point (more/less), I tend to look at the qualities of application. If you use your small amount of power well, I congratulate you. If you use a large amount of power poorly, I won't resent you--I'll criticize. Now, it has been somewhat unpopular under the aegis of white guilt and post-colonial relativism to NOT criticize those with little power. I am either part of a backlash against that sort of spineless apologetics or a step in a better direction. Personally, I don't care whether you like my position. Between emotional adults, positions should not be addressed the way teenagers talk about someone else's clothes or tastes in music. So I also don't care if you like my position. Both of those opinions are worthless to me. But if you go a step further with your opinions (or, let's say that you have a position, and I have to do better than simply say "cool" or "sucks"), you bring detail. You tell me something I don't already know about my position, you point out what I can't see ("Yes, your ass does look fat in that, Todd.")

My response will not be: you shouldn't pick on me because I don't have much social power. My response is simple, usual for me. "So what?" Only, this is not a rhetorical "so what?". I mean it. Why do you say what you say? What are you looking for? How do you want that to affect me? Most of us, when we speak, we speak because we feel an internal impulse more than because we say something that we think will have certain affects on those we speak to. I cheer, "Go Eagles!" because I want to feel excited and support my football team, not as a measured way of convincing Cowboy fans to convert. (I have another sort of message for Cowboys and their fans.) That type of communication is appropriate at the stadium, and much beyond that was normal at Veteran's Stadium. It just doesn't do much more than show us whether we're on the same side or not, whether we're headed for the same party or not--after the game or after school.

I wonder whether your comment is higher quality than mine. And I'll be honest; I want to be the best. But the best what? I don't want to be the loudest asshole. And being the loudest doesn't seem to fit with being expert. Einstein wasn't great because he could shout, but in the stadium, noise matters. I want to yell so loud that Tony Romo can't even be heard by the center right in front of him. I want the Cowboys to go down...in flames, if possible. But Einstein in that crowd is just one more person either yelling or not.

It goes without saying that I'm no Einstein. I'm not being modest. The folks who know me well know I'm not modest. But that's how it is. Einstein was no quantum mechanist, either, but he did all right for himself. Probably no one else is going to care as much as I do about my purpose. Probably. (I'll save that caveat for later.) But I'd like to work it out. If I can be happiest as an Eagles fan, then maybe that is what I want to stick to. Maybe that is where I want to deploy as much of my attention as possible. But maybe there's more. Maybe I can be an Eagles fan AND something else besides. I don't know if Einstein had a favorite team, but tons of people are sports fans and more. Do you love the game? Is the noise you make moved by that love, by passion? Besides expertise, passion counts. Passion makes qualities tangible. If I can't feel an interest in, say, psychology more than the 700-level fans feel for Donovan McNabb (our quarterback), their passion may say something my intellectual expertise does not. For me, if I am a passionate football fan and only care in a half-assed way about psychology, then I may be a great fan and a mediocre (if fairly intelligent) psychologist. Most of the folks in my stadium section would tell me that they wouldn't want to see me as a therapist if I didn't care about them.

Sorry for the sports analogy, but sometimes it helps to talk about meatheads. I still care almost as much about my high school football practices as I do about getting a master's degree. I'd like to think that I care more about the future of our planet than I do about whether I played with honor, but that's not always the case. "So what?" It almost always a relevant question. If Einstein told me about relativity before it became a big thing, I'd have asked him that question. And maybe he'd have clued me in. Is my point starting to come across? An expert who's an asshole isn't less of an asshole for being an expert? And, he's no less of an expert for being an asshole. On both counts, quality matters. We just usually make exceptions. If you can find a good mechanic, that's where you take your car, even if he's an asshole--as long as he doesn't overcharge.

I've got a couple of points coming together here. Because we're all connected to some extent, you may put up with an honest, expert mechanic who's an asshole. It's just business, and good business if his prices are reasonable. But you might invite a deacon you like to your Christmas party and leave your mechanic uninvited, alone on Christmas Eve--except for his good friends Johnny and Bud. Quality means different things in different situations. You become a lower-quality host at your party if you invite too many assholes (or too many deacons, probably).

So the fact that qualities change in different situations doesn't faze us in the least. You don't want some nice deacon with the best of intentions checking your car--you want an expert mechanic who isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes. You don't want some honest asshole at your parties, you want decent people who want to have fun. Quantities pretty much are what they are, but the importance of qualities changes depending on where we are. We are so used to dealing with this that we often don't even notice. My basic point is that assholes can loosen up or straighten out and party animals who always show up straight-laced on Sunday mornings may be more fun than rock stars. Everything changes, but many, many of us get stuck as caulking--as if we don't want change to happen. Because the world is what it is, we can't fear the wrong types of change; we have to be the right kinds of change. And in order to work on what the "right types of change" are, we have to find some way to get together on it that doesn't take away how you bring something different--sometimes better, sometimes worse--than what I bring. Every form changes, but there is something beyond and within form.