Zaadz: Integral Relationships - Theory

Re: Female brain, male brain - a recent article

Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:00:40 -0000

I feel that the topic isn't so cut and dry, a male brain or a female brain.

I identify myself more as "two spirit" (the term berdache is a wrongful description applied to native american two spirits, they are not.. nor never were sex slaves for sacred rites) rather than gay. I feel strongly that within each of us are the feminine and masculine currents. left and right brain for a truly barbaric example of what I am talking about.

men tend to operate on one side, while women tend to operate on the other side. This is merely another rather barbaric description of what I mean, and my head is a bit cloudy this morning.

culture definitely shapes the individual, there are many a gay person, who will invent a personification in order to fit into the typical stereotypes that the gay community has fashioned and claimed as its own.

As a Radical Faerie myself, I find that mainstream gay life isn't my cup of tea. does it mean that its wrong? of course not, it just isn't my focus.

I have many a woman and man tell me I wasn't gay, because I don't speak or talk in ways that are not my own mannerisms. I'll never be influenced by culture, I would rather discover my own path, and implement my own ideals.

ok so I strayed a bit, but i am foggy remember?

the spiritual side of masculine and feminine are always within us, that's my story and i'm sticking to it :)

Re: So - What IS Love?

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:02:43 -0000

What is Love? The thought comes to my mind....

It Is what happens when you see your Self in others, it is not something that turns on or of. It happens of it's own accord, Self creation. If what you call love has conditions, it is not Love, or perhaps you have it confused with love of an experience and not Love of the Self.

There is Love of Self, Character, and Experience. The self never changes, but character and experience does.

~Richard Thomas
From the Book and Movie "Infinite Play"

Re: So - What IS Love?

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:48:54 -0000

Love for me is a journey, it is not hate, nor is it war. it is definitely willing to tolerate idiosyncrasies. love isn't about changing someone else into the image we want. nor is it willing to run away, for love is not fear.

love is the total ability to trust someone, and know that they are there with you. it is an action, not a statement. saying I love you, and making love, are two entirely different feelings. love is meted out to each others needs through action. sometimes self sacrifice, other times just being.

it is a natural current within me, I can't shut it off. I know that it is difficult at times in my anger to remember love. but it is something I strive for, not being so wrathful and harsh, remembering love.

love is feeling your partners pain, even if they are at work across town. love is being in a room full of people, and just a look at each other, both are on their way out the door heading home, to be with each other.

this is love for me, not contentions or adversity or politics, but true communion of the souls.

Re: So - What IS Love?

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:12:24 -0000

My definition of love has evolved over the years...

Love is the feeling of attraction you have for someone, or a great fondness for another person, place or thing.

then...
Love is placing someone else's wants/desires above your own.

then...
Love is the sacrifice of self for the growth of other.

then...
Love is the willingness to hold a space for someone to be exactly who they are.

then...
Love is Pain. (The same way Life is Suffering.)

Aeryck

Re: So - What IS Love?

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:03:36 -0000

Dancer ,

Is this necessary to define or put lable to your feeing?
Now you are with this person , enjoy the moment in it's totality.

Dancer my experience says that most ppl love or enter in a relationship just for the sake of being in Love/relationship.... Some, due to peer pressure, some, for other reasons (as in your case) and in later stages this creates rifts....
Anyway we all learn with time. It is wonderful that you are now mature enuf to see the situation clearly and enjoy the relationship in it'sabsolute terms.
Just dont try to define it. Take things as they are...
Love has different meaning to different ppl at different times..:)

Best wishes for you
Rishi

Re: So - What IS Love?

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:10:28 -0000

Nice quote Kira,

Again why we need to define Love...
Isn't it important that Love Is?
Same as God, if you try to define it, it will prove to you that you still dont know anything.
' Love is', this is the only thing matter.....better not to try to explain it.

Rishi

Re: So - What IS Love?

Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:00:56 -0000

Love (as theory; as I see it confined to ink and paper) is simply loving something more than your own life. It is, in abstract, a thing -that if taken away from you, you would simply cease to be. It is the metaphysical equivelent of a heart or a lung. If taken, one cannot operate on the realm which it is designed to function. Love, in that sense, is all feeling. The reason that these mere physical properties continue to function -DESIRE TO FUNCTION.

Defining Integral Relationships (again)

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:43:05 -0000

I found this post from the Integral Multiplex discussion forums by a gentleman named Davidd, an attempt to define exactly what an integral relationship might be. We've gone around and around on this issue here before, but I thought it might be nice to bring in a new point of view.

*****

First, 'love'. Now, the word 'God' comes in for a lot of criticism these days, because it comes with so much ontological/metaphysical baggage. Its not that we don't want to talk about the Divine - its just that the available words carry too much history with them. Isn't this also true of 'love'? 'I love you'. What does that mean, exactly? I'm highly attracted to you? But I love my son as well as my wife. My dog as well as my mother. I want to share your life? I care about what happens to you? Agape? Eros? What?
And then, even though we may be 'in love', we don't necessarily have a relationship. Maybe we can't get on together. And we sure don't have one if I love you but you don't love me. So, love doesn't = relationship. What does? What is this 'miracle of miracles' everyone seems to long for in their lives?
From an integral perspective, I'd say that a relationship is on-going intersubjectivity. Momentary intersubjectivity isn't a relationship: my chat with the postman this morning doesn't mean that we have a thing going on... But it was intersubjectivity at a certain brief and shallow level. You and I are sharing such a moment right now, in so far as you're sharing what I'm trying to convey. But its somewhat shallow still , not least because its pretty one way so far - until you respond....
So, the intersubjectivity has to have duration, and it also has to have depth.
Now, depth is the tricky part. I'll throw out the suggestion here that achieving intersubjective depth is the LL equivalent of achieving higher stages of consciousness in the UL quadrant. Any takers for that idea? If not, what would be the equivalent?
Traditionally, love is a mystery. It just happens. We fall in love, we suffer, we yearn, we transform ecstatically in each other's arms. Though that would only be the sexual type of love, of course.... I think that integral illuminates this mystery, without making it any the less miraculous, and at the same time clarifies how romantic love and family love and so on are related.
A love relationship is a case of enduring deep intersubjectivity. Whether or not sex is involved is only a surface issue. Its the same thing underneath, whatever the nature of the participants.
Increasing intersubjective depth means increasing intimacy.
Real intimacy is as miraculous and enobling in our lives as access to higher states of consciousness. Anyone who has experienced it is likely to agree with that. So, how do we achieve it?
In the UL, you meditate and engage in spiritual practices to increase the chances of development. In the LL, the practice is to empathise.
This, for me, is one of Ken's penetrating insights. Whether it originates with him, who cares? He points out that we have to see the world from the other's point of view. Until we can do that, we can't have a relationship. The way into intimacy begins with empathy. And Ken points out - again, brilliantly - that empathy is not an emotional activity. Its an intellectual step. I have to think myself into what its like to be you, through listening to you, observing you, hanging around you. Once I can do that, my emotions will follow. But my emotions can't do it by themselves. They'll just give me an extension of myself. They'll bang blindly into your differences and won't understand them. Only my mind can do this job.
Of course, empathy is only the start. The miracle itself will only happen if we BOTH empathise with each other. Otherwise, empathy but no intimacy.
It might seem all seem a little cold, put like this, I guess. But my own experience sure bears it out. As an egotistical youngster I didn't have relationships, I had physical and emotional encounters. I didn't know what intimacy was. Gradually, as I developed and became less self-centered, I was able to empathise more, and now and then the encounters grew into deeper mutual experiences. It was a long time before I found real intimacy. Learning to mutually relate was a spiritual journey just as much as prayer and meditation were.
All of which sheds light on why people find relationships so challenging. In this context, you'd expect it! One partner empathises more than the other. Neither partner empathises even though they're crazy about each other physically and the sex is amazing. Parent and child can't empathise because of expectations and history. And I guess that it also sheds light on why people keep trying all their lives to find intimacy, to find intersubjectivity: its because the Spiral is pulling them in that upward direction, and its tugging at those hearts which need to share as well as those souls which need to transcend....

Re: Defining Integral Relationships (again)

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:44:06 -0000

So you mean a relationship is defined by the constant search and awareness of shared meaning?

(I will remind everyone at this point that I have never read Ken Wilber. I know that makes me terribly un-cool as per Zaddz standards.....
...but I am one who has developed his own understanding of integration, and what it is to weild such a mindset)

I am in full agreement with this play on empathy, I must say. But clearly, as I've stated above, there is no way for me to embrace this "LL" quadrant.

Re: Defining Integral Relationships (again)

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:40:41 -0000

The LL quadrant (sorry for the integral-speak, I lifted that quote from Integral Institute site) is the "shared values" quadrant, it's the WE quadrant.

This is Wilber's model:

This image provides as much info as you need to grasp the basics of AQAL.

I agree that empathy is necessary (but not sufficient) for an integral relationship. We generally tend not to think about our relationships as being centered in the WE quadrant, but they are. No matter who much we share, the union of two people is always a mingling of cultural values -- and how well we can empathize with each other will determine to some extent how well we can honor each other.

This is an area that is a constant struggle for my little judgemental mind. I am capable of empathy, but it isn't my natural predisposition at this point (I'm working on that).

Re: Defining Integral Relationships (again)

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:29:18 -0000

Let me muse on this AQAL for a bit...

Re: Defining Integral Relationships (again)

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:09:57 -0000

I must confess I have not read any of Ken Wilber's books either. In my mind what an integral relationship should be, is for me best described by Bill Plotkin as Soulful Romance.

"Soulful romance is held like a fragile flame in the unflinching gaze and
steady embrace of the lover as he is revealed to himself and to his beloved
in each moment of the dance. As in the unfolding of any sacred mystery,
there is no telling what may happen next but there is faith that whatever it
is it will unfold with authenticity and integrity, and whatever happens will
deepen the journey of both parties.

Through radical conversation, in which one intends, continuously, to
discover more and more about oneself and the other. Through such an exchange
between to mysteries, one draws nearer to the central mystery of life.

Loving the otherness of the partner is a transcendent event, for one enters
the true mystery of relationship in which one is taken to the third place -
not you plus me, but we who are more than ourselves with each other.

Radical conversation has emotional, imaginal, sexual, and spiritual
dimensions as well as verbal ones. And the conversation is approached not
only with skill and intent but also with innocence and wonder. Neither the
other nor the self is a fixed thing. The bottom is never reached. One hopes
to be forever surprised."

development of sexuality

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:45:36 -0000

In doing research for an essay on psychosexual development I made a conection that I had as clearly recognised before that “as we grow the person with whom we have intercourse with changes and becomes more intimate”. This 'intercourse' does not have to be sexual (meaning genital, linguistic, energetic, physical, emotional, spiritual sexual intercourse) intercourse but can also be intercourse through words or music or art (or meditative presence) but it can be one form.

Now Developmental Psychologists such as Kegan and Benjamin make a very good case for the ways in which the relationship towards another subject (person) becomes more complex and mature as our understanding of ourself becomes more complex and mature. They posit a kind of 'average' scenario in which we do not really relate to the other person as the other person and allow them their 'otherness' or their nature that is always to some degree different and inexpressible to ours, I'm sure we all recognise this. This means that in some ways we relate towards the other person as if they were us or as if they don't exist seperate from our needs, they are sort of an extention of what we think/feel/desire etc. This is not such an ideal place to be because we often do more or less violence towards the other person because we our incapable of really taing and feeling into their perspective, their felt reality, their wants and needs. When we are stressed we may also 'revert' in some sense towards this position.

The next stage however is recognising all the things we didn't recognise in the previous stage and we are often termed 'individuated' when we walk around in this head space for most of the time. This is because we know what we want seperate from other people and we also know what other people want seperate from us, we are more able to take responsability for ourselves from here and also allow people to take responsibility for themselves or not feel over-burdened with trying to 'fix' the other person as if that was actually up to us. So, to pause a bit, at the first stage being described the other person is 'inside' us, they are not really seperate from our wishes and so forth. With this second stage however the person is now 'outside' of us however the intimacy that can occur is dramatically increased because we can actually feel the vulnerability and openness of interacting with another person! This is not so clearly felt in the first stage because we don't feel the person as particularly seperate from us so there's nothing to really be vulnerable or open to. It is not as intimate as the third stage however because there is a feeling of “well, I don't really need you [as we do in the first stage, we feel dependant] and I've got my freedom and etc.”

In the third stage we fully recognise the other person's seperateness, otherness and indivduality but we also recognise that they are again 'inside' of us. That is to say that the person we are with somehow defines who we are by our very relationship to them or that even though we are seperate people together we are creating a 'system' or 'habitat' together and while I do exist as seperate I also exist as a part of that system/habitat. This moves us towards a great degree of intimacy, if we actually live and percieve from that place - which is rare, because we recognise our inherent interdependance even though we are also independant indivduals.

This also works with fucking.

1st Stage; we are fucking ourselves to some greater or smaller extent “yeah, you love that don't you, yeah, yeah”, we our lost in our own experience of sexuality and therefore it's not so intimate.

2nd Stage; we are mutually fucking each other “do you like that? I like it so and so” etc. Partners in this place are a lot more even.

3rd Stage; we feel so much into the pther person that we actually become them and feel what gives them their deepest joy. This type of experience is often characterised by a loss of the boundary of the individual self, which can be frightening, and also an engagement with the sexual act more so for the pleasure of the other as it's felt as more pleasurable than our own.

Interesting huh?!

Re: development of sexuality

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:43:14 -0000

What I really like about this stage progression Rich, is that the third tier looks very similar to many other third tier lines, in that stage 3 is almost Tantric or Spiritual, regardless of a sexual relationship. You also really hit on the fact that the relationship is an event in consciousness further you are able to describe it from the first, second and third person perspectives, good model.

Namaste

Re: development of sexuality

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:54:19 -0000

Thank-you, I've just realised how poorly it is written in finishing the essay I'm writting on this. Yes, I think that's a very important point you highlight of it being 'regardless of sexual', I have written drawing from David Deida's work and how he uses the term 'sexual' to mean to dance between Form and Emptiness or Shatki and Shiva.

The Relationship Shadow

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:04:47 -0000

I posted this a while back on my blog in response (sort of) to something Drake had said here in another thread. It seems like a good topic for exploration.

**********************************************************************************************

I've been thinking for a few days now that beyond the shadow concerns of each individual in a relationship that there is also a relationship shadow.

I'm not quite sure about any of this, I'm just thinking out loud.

When a relationship is new and exciting, we do not see the shadow part of it at all, but it is still there, growing and developing in the darkness. All the things that bring two people together feel wonderful and healthy. We tend not to see any of the less desirable qualities in our partner or ourselves. We think -- or try to convince ourselves -- that it will always be this way.

Hal and Sidra Stone talk about bonding patterns in relationships, the inner selves that interact to bring couples together. I've posted on this in the past.

The authors look at relationships through what seems, at first glance, to be a very limited and limiting filter. They believe that all relationships -- romantic, sibling, parent/child, friendship, and so on -- can be reduced to a simple diagram. I tried to find it on the web to include it here, but was unsuccessful. So I will just recreate it as best I can and quote their brief introduction to the topic.
Mother . . . . .[the woman]. . . . Daughter
Son . . . . . . . . [the man] . . . . . . Father
This is their diagram, sort of. Here is their explanation:

In this diagram we see the basic male-female bonding pattern. The mother side of the woman is bonded to the son side of the man (the M-S axis), and the father side of the man is bonded to the daughter side of the woman (the F-D axis). This diagram illustrates the basic bonding pattern that exists in all male and female relationships before the development of any kind of awareness. It is a normal and natural process. It cannot be eliminated, nor would eliminating it be desirable; these bonding patterns contain much life and vitality. They often provide warmth and nurturing. The problem is that without awareness they are very likely to turn negative. In addition, the two people miss what is possible in the interaction of two aware egos.

These bonding patterns are part of the shadow of all relationships, although the Stones never really use that term. If we are not aware of how we are seeking to get our needs met, and if we continue to live these bonding patterns throughout the relationship, then the healthy bonding that brings two people together can become negative.

Here is a little more from the first chapter of their book:

To summarize what we have so far discussed, we refer to this way of being locked into each other in a relationship as a negative bonding pattern. The term "bonding patterns" in relationship refers specifically to the activation of parent/child patterns of interaction between two people. These are normal and natural configurations that exist in all relationships. This bonding can develop between any two people, whether they be male/female, male/male, or female/female. The catalyst for all negative bonding patterns is the activation of the disowned vulnerability in the two people. ... The fuel for these bonding patterns can generally be found in the mutuality of the disowned selves that exists between two people. This keeps the bonding pattern burning bright and strong.
To analyze a negative bonding pattern in a relationship, one looks for the following:
1. What was the ignition point or catalyst? How was the vulnerability of the two people activated? Where are they feeling insecure, overwhelmed, or otherwise vulnerable?
2. What are the disowned selves that each carries for the other? What is the fuel that keeps the fires burning?
3. What are the actual selves that are involved in the bonding, i.e., the mother daughter selves in the woman, and the father and son selves in the man?

For an explanation of primary and disowned selves, please see this post from last April.

The relationship shadow, as I am now conceiving of it, consists in these negative bonding patterns. Even more to the point, the relationship shadow consists of the interaction of our disowned selves.

Part of what draws us to a partner is that s/he contains or represents some element of ourselves that we have disowned. These are parts of our personal shadow, elements of our own psyches (and often distinct subpersonalities) that we do not own and have not integrated into our self concept. Our psyches are drawn to this energy in the other person and if everything else is right (attraction, compatibility, emotion, and so on), then we fall in love.

This is as it should be.

Part of the work of relationships is learning to see these disowned selves in the other person so that we may reclaim them. We most often become aware of them when conflict comes up. Because disowned selves are necessarily shadow elements, we have projected them onto our partner. Our projections have the unique ability to make us crazy when we see them in others, even when they are not negative elements of ourselves.

Much of our conflict in relationships, according to the Stones, is a result of our disowned selves interacting -- and this includes the father-daughter, mother-son bonding patterns. For example, if my internalized father becomes distant when my partner's inner daughter is acting needy, then there will be conflict. If my inner child is being selfish and her inner mother were to respond by being critical, there would be conflict. Often, this would set off a cascade of different selves acting up, with each partner switching roles quickly and fluidly.

The interaction of subpersonalities (selves) within each partner -- the bonding patterns that most often occur behind the scenes -- is what I am thinking of as the relationship shadow.

But we are not doomed to live with this for the duration of our relationships. With a little bit of work, we can become aware of our subpersonalities and those we have disowned and projected onto our partner. The Stones' book, Embracing Each Other, is a great place to begin. Once we know to what look for, we can begin to see negative bonding patterns as they arise in a conflict and stop the process before it escalates.

If we can disidentify with our subpersonalities in a conflict, we can short-circuit the negative bonding patterns and expose the relationship shadow to the light of day.

********************************************************************************************

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Re: So - What IS Love?

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:46:39 -0000

Too often, we confuse love with ownership, possesion or neediness.

Love has nothing to do with any of these nor with how long a relationship has lasted.
Love exists moment-to-moment-to-moment.

I have written a poem about called "What is Love?"

http://iloveyou.zaadz.com/blog/2006/11/what_is_love

and a short blog about it:

http://iloveyou.zaadz.com/blog/2007/2/on_romantic_relationships

and also the following poem about it:

her Entrance is a happy ray of sunshine into the room,
and yes!
I can live with or without her.
After all, I myself am a bundle of joy,
and I do not believe in sentimental love songs
like
“There’s no sunshine when she’s gone.”
Because, even during the times when she’s away from me,
the sky is still shining and the sun is still beautiful,
except, of course,
when it rains,
but even that is really cool,
because, after it rains,
I can see the rainbow.

But it’s just incredibly nice to be around her.

****************************************************************************

Also remember that

"everybody always does the most loving thing they are capable of doing in the moment"
(from "A Course in Miracles")

The Future of Love by Daphne Rose Kingma (Paperback - Jan 19, 1999)

is also a book I highly recommend on the subject of love - it's the best book ever among all the books I have read!

Also, spending more time being still and simply listening to the Source Within, and then writing down whatever you feel like writing afterwards also helps a lot!

I hope these help!

Thanks so much for sharing your story!

Re: So - What IS Love?

Wed, 30 May 2007 12:56:53 -0000

"imo the root of love is a biochemical, biological bond. Just being with the other person triggers off a delicious flow of brain chemicals. With that base, and some self-knowledge and the willingness to talk, love has a good chance to work out." I Love that little snippet. I think love is innevitable as long as that willingness to both give and receive is available between the relatees. I was going to say between 2 lovers, but not everybody swings that way. Some people fall in love with things too. Reality is affectionate. Love her and she'll love you back. Whatever meaning you scoop into that word seems to work.

Re: So - What IS Love?

Wed, 30 May 2007 13:17:40 -0000

Love is complete patience. It hit me late in life & to be quite honest, I didn't like what it turned me into. True enough I allowed myself to trust & learn to be patient when someone needs more from me than I could sometimes spare, but I had total control of my emotions & goals until love sent me on a whole different trip. I don't regret it, I just don't think I will be ready to ever give that much of myself to someone for a very long time. For those who can give themselves & surrender themselves whole-heartedly without worrying about pain & regrets, I admire you.

Relationship and Spiral dynamics

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:39:10 -0000

New blog posted on an Individual couples' developmental journey via Spiral Dynamics

http://garystamper.zaadz.com/blog