Group dynamics and other animals

Hi everyone,


two recent threads, Witnessing the Witness… and Faceless Posters, have had me mulling over the subject of group dynamics in general and in this pod particularly again.
 

Here's an expanded version of what I wrote to a friend today:


Ah, language!!!!!! Used to reveal, but more often than not to obscure the truth.

Sometimes I don't want to hear only the famous experts in their field. I'm fascinated by the possibilities of learning from our peers. It's more fun this way, requiring more than being a passive member in an audience, taking turns playing  parent-child, teacher-student, etc. This way we're getting to practice vital interactive loosey gooseyness — a good thing in my book.

Weird behavior on the forum doesn't bother me usually. In fact, anyone going overboard one way or the other has my silent sympathies for providing grist for the mill, entertainment on stage, an opportunity for  others to jump up and shine. I enjoy the unpredictable nature of the drama we all unfold with every post. Maybe I should say that  openly… Hmmm. My heart goes out to characters who overreach and stumble spectacularly. That's me out there - the fool, the zero in the Tarot.

Now to the Witnessing thread. Have I contributed to or even created the self-conscious retreat in evidence presently, where everyone has fallen silent for fear of offending or provoking someone else? Have we shot our wad there? I want to reply to Michael's post to me but not single him out with praise while dearly beloved e and Rick are presumably left out in the cold.

I feel quite tongue-tied after all our discussions about right speech, skillful means, male/female sensitivities. Maybe the whole pod is feeling this oppressive spiritual correctness vibe that smothers more vital energies…


Hmm, kinda stuck here, pod-wise,

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Mascha, so cool that you posted this and opened up a discussion on it. I have lots to say on the subject, :), but I don't really have time right now. More later.

I've also been enjoying learning from people on this pod rather than (or rather, in addition to) established teachers. Sometimes it seems more relevant, and people have consensed a lot of material and experience and learning here–it sometimes seems a more efficient use of time, oddly enough.

Wierd behavior doesn't bother me either. I like it. With more trust, we could all be acting wierder still. Let's do it!

I think the Fool (the entertainer) is a good thing to be, but I also see other cards in your repetoire that are just as strong: the Magician, the High Priestess, the Empress, among others.

Yes, there is a tense feel in the pod at the moment—–what next? :)

Oppressive feelings–yes, there are some oppressive feelings, and some of those are negative, attibutable to the wrong sort of spiritual correctness and such that do smother spirit, but we shouldn't go so far in the other direction that there isn't what Andrew Cohen calls “Evolutionary Tension”:
  

Evolutionary Tension is the experiential quality of the new consciousness that is liberated between individuals who come together in the authentic self. The authentic self cares only about the future, and that care is felt in the human heart and mind as a powerful wakefulness, a thoroughly positive and wholesome tension that endlessly compels the individual to rise to his or her highest potential in order to create that future… . It is the dynamic awareness of and surrender to the creative impulse, the demand from the authentic self to become more, to reach for higher and more complex forms of harmony and integration. This positive tension creates a context for human relationship that is always evolutionary because it is infused with the living presence of unmanifest, immanent potential.

How do you compare the vibe at the Multiplex compared to the vibe here? There's no 7th circle here, but they're both I-I. Why should they be different? I enjoy the vibe here generally; it's really high quality stuff, but we can always improve. edit: Just to be clear, I think the vibe is much, much better here, but there wasn't the constrictive feeling there that there seems to be here at the moment. I don't know why that is, really.

Sorry you're feeling stuck, podwise. I guess I am too a little bit. There are some things I would like to say in the faceless thread as well, but I feel it could quickly turn into confrontational posting if I did. Also, we have to recognize, politically incorrect as it is, that we are coming from a range of value spheres here, and there is going to be disagreement at times with no resolution in sight. I think we just have to learn to live with that and try not to be frustrated when other people take what seem to be horrendous positions–but at the same time speak our minds without fear. We can do that as long as people are keeping a close watch on what they say so as not to unduly disturb people and as long as it doesn't descend into personal attacks, which I think is a big reason for oppressive feelings at the moment.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hi David: I have not been involved around here much at all, but David I appreciate your emphasis on authenticity and the authentic self…my northstar at the moment is authenticity, since the choice for the “centaur” seems to be between authenticity, on the one hand, or deadening, on the other hand…

Best to y'all,
durwin

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hey, I didn't mean to add to the oppressive feelings when I said, “keeping a close watch on what they say.” Sorry. :) I don't want to cramp anyone's style or oppress anyone's voice, especially yours, Mascha, which soars so high and free.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

No, no, it's alright, no problem, er, um… uhh… it's a touchy subject, isn't it?

O yikes and love etcetera,

M   (for mute for a minute, though not much more)

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hello there…

I thought about posting a thread that was full of pig latin or made up words that had no foundation and only meaning to me because the Witnessing thread became so much about the 'rightness' of the experience.  How can one decipher what is right?

Are our tongues tied because we are so busy find the right words?  Or maybe they are tied because we are speaking with our heads and not our hearts.  My heart wants to speak but all my head wants to say is:

Clarfish arbeolt fingvish sinfardigoff

:D

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hey everyone

Thanks so much for posting this Mascha, I've felt the stuckness too.  Frans sent me a PM a few days ago asking if I was ok and why I hadn't been posting.  I just havn't felt pulled in by the kind of energy thats been flowing here recently.  What's going on?

I've gotta say, the absence of Pelle, Arthur and Mary has been part of it I feel.  Not because of their actual mod abilities, but because they're contributions bring such a balancing and guiding presence.


Ewan

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

On a group level I think the ebb in activity is because of the insane activity and depth we had in three almost consecutive threads a while back. People needed to take a step back, tend to other parts of their life and recharge their “forum batteries”.

On a more personal level I’ve been more absent because of what I just wrote, and also because I simply have more stuff to do IRL now than before. I’m also going through a phase where theory is less interesting to me, after having dived deep into the nuances of Integral Theory for almost a full year. The more interpersonal threads are still very interesting to me though and I try to focus on them when I go online.

It’s unfortunate that all three mods are relatively absent at the same time. Whether we have any good qualities or not, it’s kind of weird when you don’t feel the presence of any of the mods. Arthur is relocating and Mary has undergone major surgery… At the same time it’s also an opportunity for others to start threads, host threads and initiate new kinds of conversations. Colin’s book club and Ewan’s “Faceless posters” thread are both great examples of this, as is the very active Indigo Buddhism discussion in Chapel Perspicacious.

I’m still alive and kicking, and still here!

peace, blessings and hugs

Pelle

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hi Mascha

I too stepped back from posting, I debated taking my bat and ball home completely but then decided to grow up a bit :-)))

 I'm wondering whether my requests for plain language and real-life examples have contributed to the spiritual correctness strait-jacket effect and I want to loosen any buckles I've tightened.  My requests were not intended to restrict anyone, more asking for an elaboration alongside a more theoretical framework to help me put things into place in my own map of the world - purely selfish I know, but might be useful for others too! So apologies to anyone I've painted into a corner.

So how do we take this on as a group? How do we use our learning?

Juliee

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

I thought more about what I posted and this thread last night and wanted to add a few ideas.  Juliee actually touched on some of what I was going to post, the real feeling of being integral and how that translates to this pod.

My personal experience on this pod has been that either 1.  I do not ask questions or make statements that are in the correct 'language' and therefore get dismissed or silenced by the thread or topic taking off in a deeper yet less personal direction.  This has happened several times and I thought about changing my way of posting and being and then I thought, like Juliee, about packing it in and now I am in the phase of f' it  I am going to post whatever the heck I want and if I come across as a novice or an idiot or someone that needs to be taught (or ignored) so be it.

2.  I think there is the political correctness going on too……. I will only post when I think my opinion can be backed up by something to prove my stand  AND, I can't possibly reveal I am angry or agitated because then it would show I am not beyond getting angry and enlightened.

I say Fuck that

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Gina:
2.  I think there is the political correctness going on too……. I will only post when I think my opinion can be backed up by something to prove my stand  AND, I can't possibly reveal I am angry or agitated because then it would show I am not beyond getting angry and enlightened.

I say Fuck that


If in a forum such at this one, which truly does have an integral center of gravity, it is still exceedingly hard to leave the green mode of discourse behind.

So yeah, fuck green, fuck political correctness, fuck that.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

(Note: This riff on the most versatile word in the world was written before I had a chance to see David's last reply. I am definitely interested in serious discussions here as well. And theories too!)


Surprising. I approach the forum bleary-eyed after not much sleep last night, click on this thread with some slight trepidation, and what do I hear?  Sweet strains of what is music to mine ears, set to words of liberation: “Fuck that.”

Could this be true? Fresh energy starts to course through clogged veins, a sigh of relief releases pent-up tension, and I join in, slowly at first but quickly gathering steam: Right on, Pelle, Gina, Juliee, Ewan, (is David with us? E and Rick? Colin? I must make sure!), fuck that, and fuck it some more, and all together now: fuck this sticking to rigid roles for far too long. Fuck holding particular social positions. Doublefuck to constantly trying to make a good impression. And triple - nay, Quadruple AQAL Fuck to excluding anyone, including famously exclusive fuckers like Julian, forever from our fucked-up, flawed, flea-ridden embrace of every fucking freaky fuck that could possibly disturb our fucking evolutionary drive for greater shit to emerge in the fucking Void, eh?

Quoting Arthur, “Just sayin',”

meh

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Without speculating on the pod's COG I'll just add that when we talk about COG it's good to, in addition to the cognitive line, consider lines like motivation and emotion. Because people can be thinking integral but feeling and acting less than that.

WILBER: You know, when Aurobindo talks about intuitive mind and overmind and supermind, it's very telling that he uses the word mind. Because you can also say that there are intuitive emotions, and over-emotions, and super-emotions. The same with motivation–there's intuitive motivation and over-motivation and super-motivation. So there are all those other lines of development that go up the hill with the mind line, or cognitive line. But we still find that the cognitive line is usually necessary for these other lines to stick. If you don't have intuitive mind awakened, and overmind awakened, and supermind awakened, the emotions won't stick up there–they'll come and go. And the higher motivations won't stick–they'll come and go.

From this article.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Great addition, David. You've got me thinking about my deepest discernible motivation for posting what I have so far.  Interestingly, there is a conversation going on in the “Faceless posters” thread right now, where the dynamics between two, seemingly opposing 'factions' are becoming so obvious, it's almost ironic.

Let's see if I can formulate what I see enacted over and over again on this pod – and elsewhere in spiritual circles:

Some of us are intent on creating a space where everything can be allowed and have a chance to grow (Gina, Juliee and me in this thread for example), in other words, a WOMB, wherein resting As Is would be considered of greatest value;  while others (David and Mr. Teacup on the Faceless thread) are intent on creating a PULL toward higher and deeper formations within that unconditional resting place.

As you've said elsewhere:  “Yes, they're both so important. Without allowing rest As Is, we're in superego for sure. You can't have one without the other.”


M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

I’d love to contribute here too, but I was having a great fuck, so maybe not right now - hehe.

Mascha, take another look at the faceless posters thread - seems that “parties” are actually approaching each other with open minds…

Frans

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Frans, Frans, Frans, (laughing here)

this is the fourth time I believe, you've jumped right out of the box and into my face.

Am I beginning to see a pattern there? You betcha. Do I speculate as to what your motivations are? Yep, can't help myself there.   Whenever someone says “actually” the way you used the word above, it means, “NO, you've got it wrong, and I'm going to set things right for ya.” So that's a clue.

Glad to be of service to you,

wrongalong ding dong

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Mascha,

That’s where language gets us confused - I meant “actually” to mean “can you believe it?” I agreed completely with your post, just the exchange between Mr. TC and myself went a step further after you’d made to comment - so I wanted you (and everyone else) to share.

I can see how actually could mean “no, you’re wrong - but, actually (hehe), it didn’t in this particular case.

Love the controversy - Frans

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Oh, I see. Thanks for coming back and clarifying that, Frans.

Controversy is good, huh? What would we do without disagreements here? Play the harp and occasionally slap each other on the back, Halleluja, sis and bro, you're right, I'm right, we're all continously absolutely right. Not much to do, though, okay… let's find some hell realm where we can fuck with people's minds and try to show 'em a better way. So off we go, straight down the tubes, but this time we call it fulfilling our bodhisattva vows.

Juliee said earlier:

” I'm wondering whether my requests for plain language and real-life examples have contributed to the spiritual correctness strait-jacket effect and I want to loosen any buckles I've tightened.” 

Gina agreed with the overall tenor of that,  and so do I. So much respect has been demonstrated by everyone on the Witnessing thread (for example), a strong desire to comply with everybody else's wishes… which we can't.  It was quite moving for me to notice this. We're actually willing to twist ourselves into pretzels just to be helpful to the rest of the gang.

Group hugs,

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Ah, it's so nice in here. This is good. Everything as it is …

 

“And triple - nay, Quadruple AQAL Fuck”


Hahahahahahaha

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

  “Some of us are intent on creating a space where everything can be allowed and have a chance to grow (Gina, Juliee and me in this thread for example), in other words, a WOMB, wherein resting As Is would be considered of greatest value;  while others (David and Mr. Teacup on the Faceless thread) are intent on creating a PULL toward higher and deeper formations within that unconditional resting place.”

This makes it so clear. I really see it now. And feel it. Fuck yes!

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

I think our best chances at healthy relationship and we-spaces require that we have a humorous sort of vigilance towards the continual corruption of our own motivations by our self-centered needs and fears. And expect others to be as flummoxed by their own.

This comment from Lauren on the faceless posters thread starts to answer my questions above about how we use our learning to develop the pod further.

Thanks for the heads-up Frans.

Juliee

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hmm. Lots of grist to grind here, though I find the sometimes messy dialog is often more gritty than the talking about the messy dialog. Just to clarify: I hold both as important.

Mascha initially wrote: Weird behavior on the forum doesn't bother me usually. In fact, anyone going overboard one way or the other has my silent sympathies for providing grist for the mill, entertainment on stage, an opportunity for  others to jump up and shine. I enjoy the unpredictable nature of the drama we all unfold with every post. Maybe I should say that  openly… Hmmm. My heart goes out to characters who overreach and stumble spectacularly. That's me out there - the fool, the zero in the Tarot.

This really resonates for me. I find that it's often by risk-taking and allowing ourselves to post even when contracted (to varying degrees) that we create space for authentic exploration to occur. Pie or mud on the face often provides new insights and challenges us to really consider our beliefs and ways of communicating. It is in willingness to appear as the fool that we give a great gift to the we (and ourselves, if we can take looking), even (or especially) when it means projections arise and hurt feelings ripple outward/inward. The only condition that I would add is that I try to respect and honor each individual in the we, whether I explicitly state that or keep it in the foreground of my mind. This is true even when I disagree with someone or find what is said irrelevant from my perspectives or find myself annoyed.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

I think one of the funniest things that started to come out in the Witnessing thread was the complaining that e, myself and maybe a few others were talking down to people. No one said that, per say, but is was an overall atmosphere that was saying, “hey, what makes ya'll think you know more than me? Can't you see that your perspective is no better than my perspective, etc…”
What is funny about this, is that Integral theory itself does this. It is founded upon the fact that there are some people that are at stages where they see more of the “big picture,” if you will, and that other's literally won't understand what they are trying to say, until they themselves get there.
If someone came into the forum, and started to yell out that Integral theory is inherently inegalitarian, because it privileges certain knowledge over others, and says that while all views are fine in-and-of-themselves, some are better than others in a relative sense; that person would be told that they are operating from a very Green meme and told that this is how Green thinks. Not directly, of course, but in so many words.
And this is fine, so long as you are one of those with the privileged knowledge, but when someone else pulls that shit with you, you get defensive. (You is written in a very generic way and doesn't mean everyone that is reading this post. After all this is a matter of degrees and not absolute behavior) The automatic thought process is never, “well I guess that person is operating from a higher CoG, and I should listen to them,” but the same reaction that you get from people who aren't yet operating from your CoG and possessing the privileged knowledge.
Foucault was wrong about some things, but I think he got the inherent power dynamics that appear in all relationships right. They might not be the only thing that defines human relationships, but they are way up there.

Integral theory itself, the reason that everyone is here, states in no indirect terms, that not everyone reading this post is operating from an equal stage of development. This is a fact, but this fact is wholly ignored by everyone here; at least openly. 

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Rick said:  “I think one of the funniest things that started to come out in the Witnessing thread was the complaining that e, myself and maybe a few others were talking down to people.”
 
Nobody thought or said this, Rick.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Rick: “I think one of the funniest things that started to come out in the Witnessing thread was the complaining that e, myself and maybe a few others were talking down to people. No one said that, per say, but is was an overall atmosphere that was saying, “hey, what makes ya'll think you know more than me? Can't you see that your perspective is no better than my perspective, etc…”

This is true, at least in my case. It would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise. And I did bring up my fears about being perceived as talking down to people, representing myself as yet another know-it-all, in a number of instances on that thread. Merely by speaking up and “correcting” Gina's and other's language, I felt the unwelcome role I had taken on - assuming the position that someone was asking to be further “enlightened”.

And, yes, I did call e out on what I perceived as a belittling statement couched in a compliment expressing care and concern for my inability to face the Ultimate Truth that he is privy to in one post.  And I did challenge you, Rick, in various ways to consider different perspectives - even on perspective-taking itself. And so on, I can't cover all the permutations right now…

The upshot is that I am trying to teach “you guys” to actually demonstrate in your posts that you are holding your perspectives lightly, that you're loose and are, in fact, capable of  abandoning your pre-set positions… just long enough to see how Bjorn, and David, me, and whoever else is not using the same Buddhist terminology you are most familiar with, may indeed have arrived at the same fundamental realization. Others may just be more fluent in different ways of expressing the very same Truth. And how about that?

It is my impression that you, Rick, are choosing more often than not to play the contrarian, the nay-sayer, in most conversations we're having here. And you know what? I thank you for that. By constantly re-establishing yourself as the ultimate know-it-all-better-than-thou, we can look at what it brings up in us: the SAME thing, right? Namely, “No, I know better than you! And I'm gonna show you, preferably without appearing to do so. I  sure can tell you deeper than what you've said.”

Thus, infinite one-upmanship games in infinite regress.

There is a lot more I want to say about this and different points which Colin, Juliee and others have brought up. But I'm running out of time and will come back later.

 Blessings,

your ultimately superior Motha

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

What I meant to communicate was that noone thought that Rick and e had the more inclusive perspective.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Exactly David, and there is nothing we could have possibly have written to make anyone think otherwise. That's the whole point of my post on this thread. It's ok for you and others, who hold Integral and AQAL up the highest, to be privy to privledged knowledge, but wholly ignore the fact that the entire framework you believe in so fully expresses the fact that there are others that do have a more inclusive and more direct understanding of the Whole or Truth.
I'm not saying that I have a more direct understanding than anyone else, but there are certain things that people express, that are just a little off of direct experience. Personally, from what I've read, I think that e has a deeper understanding than I do. There are a few people on this forum that do, and that's life.
Like, the fact that e and I were both pointing at a state of mind that holds no persepectives, and being told that that is merely another perspective. It simplly isn't. When we were talking about the emptiness of all things, and not-knowing, we were pointing at a mind clear of rigidness, or concepts, that is free to encompass all concepts, but know that all concepts are illusions.
That is not a perspective. All conceived perspectives have the same quality. They all aspouse a single thing or a framework. The opposite of this is no perspectives, and the true opposite of something isn't a mirror opposite, like good and evil, but a completely different thing.
We were telling eveyone here than any attempt to reify emptiness or the Whole, or the mind, is pointless, because it can't be done. If you try to reify it, that means you don't understand it's true nature. Even that last sentence has many things wrong with it.

Mascha, thanx for you honesty. Honestly is really the only thing that is required to get at the true nature of things. It keeps you from being able to bullshit yourself too much, and you are as free of self-delusion as I've ever seen.

The thing that I see the most in this forum is the need to romanticize concepts. Like, “Embrace the paradox,” or whatever. I mean it sounds cool, and feels right, so why question it. You'll notice that I have never shied away from backing up anything I say with concrete examples or admit when I've stretched a concept to far.
That's all I ask. If you saying something, you should be able to back it up with more than just another person's words. Otherwise, you don't fully understand what they are saying.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

No matter what language we use, how much some here romanticize things or how enlightened we relate to emptiness or the whole - it’s all 100% meaningless unless we live our lives accordingly. Simple and plain - no need to study on this for years or to go to any seminar, no need to meditate or contemplate - just see how you relate right now to your work, to your partner, to your family, to your friends, to your enemies, to life itself. If you can say you do that with full integrity you’ve made a difference - more than any words here will ever make - period!

Frans

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Thank you Frans. What you have just written should be permanently quoted on the forum home page. That is true understanding, and I bow to that. I am humbled.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Gina PM'd this to me, because she said that she didn't want to be confrontational towards me in public, and I appreciate it, but I can take it. So I'll repost it and respond here, because I think that she's probably not alone in her setiment.

Gina: “Here are some words you use that you may want to look at.. it is one of the areas where, imo, you create the separation you may not be trying to create.  Then again, you may in fact want to create separation… I have no idea.

Exactly David, and there is nothing we could have possibly have written
Like, the fact that e and I   ( you have no idea what in FACT e was attempting at all)
Otherwise, you don't fully understand what they are saying 

and my favorite so far this week from another thread
I'm saying that you don't understand the how culture works.   whoa.”

I'm sorry, but it seems that my point wasn't made, so I'll try again. The last couple of post weren't about me, but the general reaction to a few of my, and other's posts, and a general critic of certain inevitable outcomes and contraditions to a steadfast expousing of all things AQAL.
In my first post you can see my pointing out the contradiction of holding all individuals equal in an integral community. People here don't think they are talking down to people that are merely operating from a 1st tier center of gravity, but that they are really just pragmatically stating facts when they speak of those blue, orange and green people 'out there' doing what it is that they do. I'm not saying this snidely or with contempt in my voice, but really just posting an honest observation.
Yet, the same people, that's us, that expouse this understanding of states and stages in an AQAL unfolding, don't want those same rules applied to us. It is as though, once a person understands the conceptual framework of AQAL, they are automatically 2nd tier -after all you wouldn't be able to understand AQAL unless you were at least 2nd tier- and exempt of such categorizaiton.  Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Typing individual stage development doesn't end with 2nd tier realizaiton, and therefore there has to be a hierarchy of unfolding in this forum as well.
But, we don't like that fact, and wholly ignore it, even though every person that gets very sensitive about this kind of talk probably automatically types various people out there. I know that many forum members have put me and others squarely in an AQAL category, and so have most others. Yet we act like this isn't going on.
We say that green meme people are against the very natural hierarchy that got them to their present understanding, and that causes the MGM and that's a problem; but is this forum so different?
How can an integral framework be spread if the very people that spread it deny that they are subject to its laws? That was my critic.

So, is it possible to own up to the fact that we are all not operating on an equal playing field of understanding, and still remain civil toward each other. I'm sorry, but this is the elephant in the room that people want to act like doesn't exist.
Integral theory itself contains the seeds of its own ruin, because it is easy to talk about someone in the news or a certain kind of behavior “out there” being blue or orange, etc… and therefore literally not capable of understanding what you do, but it is really hard to be honest with real people face to face, let alone on a faceless online forum.

The “using other people's words,” part was just repeating what Gina and Mascha have said about liking to hear from the people on this forum as much as quotes from other experts. I agree with that sentiment. I feel that quoting and paraphrasing is perfectly fine, but if in the end someone can't take those points and put them into their own words, then they probably don't fully understand what they've cut and pasted. That's not really a radical idea.

As far as the Teacup thing goes… Well let's just say that David, Pelle and others understand the finer points and details of AQAL a hell of a lot better than I do, and I'm not going to talk to them like teenagers that just don't understand how the real world works when they point it out to me. They know more than I do about such things, and it is obvious in our exchanges.
Me, I know social science and I know when someone doesn't, and I was pointing out that Teacup was twisting my words into saying something that I wasn't.
Basically, I was saying, “well no shit, I'm not that naive and wasn't expressing those views.”

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Ok…… here's the one line he didn't post

You may want to consider refining your tone and style of communication if you have any desire to truly connect on a deeper level.

The purpose of my email to Rick was not to say WHAT he says is not valid …. it is HOW he says it.

Hey rick, I have read a few of Ken's books, spiral dynamics and generally speaking have a fairly good understanding of tier structures and how you and I could very well be a different tiers.  I do understand your threads and if I don't respond it is mostly because of the style of wording and the delight in the exacting minuteness of the dialog.  Does that mean I am at a different tier?  I am assuming by your text below that it does mean that for you.  Maybe I am not as verbal or wired to discuss in the same format as you do, by assuming that I do not engage with examples and specificity does not create fact. 

The cutting and pasting of your words were all about the Tone not as much about the content.

To me this is similar to what people expect out of Julian (except he really is only interested in one topic where you are much more diverse).  I love what Julian has to say and he seems to have challenges with getting his exchanges to be less confrontational.  You do have a groove with some of the other guys on the POD so it is not the same but again, your tone is different than theirs (to me…. imo)

Occasionally, I get triggered by what you say.  Mostly I don't.  If you don't see a problem then there is nothing to fix.  Now, on why I sent it to you in PM, this was a direct comment to you and how I respond to you and I felt it was a bit outside the rules of the POD to post it here.

There is a guy in my Wilber meet up that is bright and articulate and knows a lot of AQAL and other Stuff.  His approach to the group (at first) was as teacher in the sense he assumed we did not know all that he knew and so he would repeatedly interrupt people and show them where they were not exactly right.  Since we cannot have a live conversation and this is the closest thing to what it might feel like to have a conversation with you I would ask the question I asked him;  Is it more important to be right/exacting or to allow the flow of the exchange to continue?

Deepest respect,

Gina

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Yeah, I don't like the tone that some of my post seem to reflect either. It is a valid criticism.
Know that I'm not writing out of anger anything like that. There's a fine line with this kind of communication. My directness that serves me well in life, can be taken in a way that is not meant and I need to work on that. Actually, I edit my posts heavily after I write them and really try not offend people. That bit about Teacup not understanding culture was over the line, it was rude, and uncalled for, your right.
At the same time, there are some that beat around the bush a little too much. As with all things, we must meet in the middle. So feel free to let me know when I'm pushing the limits with you.
In truth, none of us communicate on this forum in a way that doesn't annoy someone else.
So when you feel annoyed, look into yourself and search for the causes of that annoyance within you, and even this annoyence can become a teacher.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

So feel free to let me know when I'm pushing the limits with you.

Deal.

So when you feel annoyed, look into yourself and search for the causes of that annoyance within you, and even this annoyence can become a teacher.

And thank you for reminding me to once again look within to see where my discomfort is really living.  My love for my humanity is growing more each day.

g

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Oh Lord, how to talk about these group dynamics, the role playing and the “games people play”, without offending, pushing all sorts of buttons left and right? Genuine question on my part. I'm not good at this. I wish I were.

I'll offer some personal observations. In any spiritual type of group I've ever encountered (some large, some very small), there is an energy field that is created by the gathering of beings open to learning more, there is an expansion of awareness, a dropping of masks and normal defenses taking place. This willingness to be taught new ways of being creates a kind of vacuum - an open space where the clear light shines through. These seekers are walking around with visible cracks in their armor – and that's what attracts predators.

I know. I've been one myself… been a predator as well as prey. And if someone wants to jump up now to object to the harshness of the terms “predator” and “prey”, I'll say that these words are used to *highlight* the complex I'm trying to tackle here. Without highlighting the various semi-conscious roles we play, our chances of seeing them clearly are nil.

A spiritual predator is usually someone who has gathered an enormous amount of knowledge as well as some strong tastes of the direct experience. There is a tremendous pressure at a certain stage to share this wisdom, to relieve oneself of the burden of all this far-out and truly helpful “stuff.” This is where I've jumped on people who seemed lost in the wilderness I had recently traversed, and started to jawbone them with some mind-blowing nondual wisdom – or, as the case may be, some free-of-charge psychotherapy. Hot shit, too, I might add. Totally true. Absolutely on the mark. And what do I get in response? These idiots start running away from me! Maybe one or two are bleating some feeble retorts which only prove they ain't getting what I'm telling them at all. So I double my efforts, now they've got my juices flowing. I know a number of incredibly sophisticated moves, and I'm drawing from a fairly extensive repertoire, so I'm gonna get those poopers to see this or lose my goodness, truth and beauty trying!

Is there anybody here who hasn't done this to some extent, at one time or another?
Please speak up, I'd like to take a look at you. ….Rare creature, but it could exist somewhere, huh? possibly.

So, after failing my own internal standards of right conduct enough times, I shut up and totally withdrew. No more attempts to help anybody see ANYTHING whatsoever, I swore. Only practical stuff, innocuous double-entendres dropped into conversations would be the most I'd allow myself – just for my own amusement, really.

Then, about a year ago I got involved with a group that was trying to stop a predator who billed himself as a Financial Advisor / Investment Guru. This guy was attracting scads of greedy + gullible types who want to believe that certain experts are able to correctly predict stock market returns in the future. He was one extremely sophisticated robber in guru's robes, and we took him out of commission. In the course of our volunteer effort, we had to learn just about every trick in the  guru/teacher/ therapist/healer book. We discovered this online resource from the UK, where the serial activity of predators is rightfully identified as a form of bullying, and where targets of bullying activity can turn for insight into exactly what numbers are pulled on them.   



http://www.bullyonline.org/

Bully Online home page

There are several types identified on this site. The bully in guru-garb was the most fruitful one to recognize for me. 

The Bully in Guru-Garb -

(I've selected a few excerpts here; see if you recognize these traits in yourself or others IRL and online)


Motivation: task focused
Mindset: confusion, inability to understand how others think and feel
Malice: zero to low; when held accountable, low to medium (it's often the absence of malice that identifies a guru type of serial bully) but could be medium to high if narcissistic or psychopathic traits are present

    * often successful in their narrow field of expertise
    * regarded as an expert
    * pursues objectives regardless of the cost
    * can be successful over the medium term in their field
    * task focused
    * lacking in people skills
    * mainly but not exclusively male
    * gauche, aggressive and unpleasant but not evil
    * may not be overtly attention-seeking but dislikes those around them getting more attention than they're getting, or getting attention which doesn't include the bully
    * self-centred, self-opinionated, dogmatic and thoughtless with a tendency to pontificate
    * convincingly intellectualises feelings to compensate for emotional immaturity
    * intelligent (often highly) but lacks common sense
    * does not live in the present
    * makes assumptions about others' thoughts
    * seems unaware of the nature and purpose of rapport
    * appears unable to read people and their thoughts and especially feelings
    * when held accountable exhibits genuine confusion as to why their behaviour is inappropriate
    * is unable to comprehend or meet the emotional needs of others
    * often puts work and duty above everything, including relationships
    * thinks of self as superior and above the law / rules / regulations etc. (these only apply to other people)
    * uses denial as a defense mechanism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In hopes that this helps with our pattern recognition in group settings,

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Whoa Mascha

What a brilliant resource.

I recognise the bully-in-guru list and predator/prey descriptions and like you have been party to both. The former used to come out to play at work until one fairly innocuous meeting where I suddenly recognised what I was doing (last thing on a Friday night - I had to stew over the weekend before I could go back and apologise and try and make things right!). Now I try to hold myself lightly and laugh at my more preposterous moments.

There is slight variation on the theme which I'm very consciously working on; bully-in-parent-guru mode. I was heavily 'bullied' and controlled by my parents (in an orange-green its-for-your-own-good way; they still try it to this day) and I have to be constantly vigilant when with my kids to not repeat the patterns and I'm not always succesful. When I'm not I talk to the kids about it, they're becoming very adept at recognising things and use this to inform their own relationships with friends too.

In the context of this pod, I consciously hold back from trying to 'fix' other people (my favourite trick of yore), that's their journey to make. Perhaps, as you and Rick both say, more forthrightness is needed to aid learning - a pointing out but without defining a solution for the other person. As you say, very difficult to do, holding that line. Food for thought.

Thanks for your courage in putting this forward.

Juliee

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hi Juliee and all,

yes, we went “whoa!” as well when we started reading the material on the Bully OnLine site and came across statements like this:

“Half the population are bullied by a serial bully … most only recognize it when they read this

And this one:

“I estimate one person in thirty, male or female, is a serial bully.”

One in 30?? And half the population of Great Britain? What about the population in Islamic countries? Most relevant for me, though, was to recognize the difference between bullying, harassment and assault as it pertains to spiritual groups where this sort of behavior should be largely absent or immediately nipped in the bud, right?

Well… (sigh). It only gets more sophisticated and subtle, even though it becomes grossly obvious once you've had your eyes opened to the patterns. We are all members of groups within groups within still larger groups, so it is very helpful to understand what makes us a target in the various configurations of group settings we find ourselves in – at school, in the workplace, family, hospitals, spiritual circles and so on.

Quote excerpts from Bully OnLine.org:

Why me?

1) How do bullies select their targets?

The bully selects their target using the following criteria:

    * bullies are predatory and opportunistic - you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; this is always the main reason - investigation will reveal a string of predecessors, and you will have a string of successors

    * being good at what you do, often excelling

    * being popular with people (colleagues, customers, clients, pupils, parents, patients, etc)

    * more than anything else, the bully fears exposure of his/her inadequacy and incompetence; your presence, popularity and competence unknowingly and unwittingly fuel that fear

    * being the expert and the person to whom others come for advice, either personal or professional (ie you get more attention than the bully)

    * having a well-defined set of values which you are unwilling to compromise

    * having a strong sense of integrity (bullies despise integrity, for they have none, and seem compelled to destroy anyone who has integrity)

    * having at least one vulnerability  that can be exploited

    * being too old or too expensive (usually both)

    * refusing to join an established clique

    * showing independence of thought or deed

    * refusing to become a corporate [or in-crowd] clone and drone

Jealousy (of relationships and perceived exclusion therefrom) and envy (of talents, abilities, circumstances or possessions) are strong motivators of bullying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Their choice of words here is also noteworthy. Victims are called “targets” to forestall the derogatory connotations that “victimhood” has been saddled with in pop psychology and certain brands of New Age spirituality.

Cheers,

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

A higher ethic, in my book, entails care for all without exception. In my experience in spiritual groups, at some point, when the pressure is on or when someone is threatening in some way or triggering people, an exception will be made. And the exception will be rationalized in all sorts of ways to prevent it being seen as an exception. It's at a pretty high COG that people want to start working wtih people who threaten them or trigger them in some way. They have to really want self-transcendence stage-wise, and they have to be willing to make the sacrfices necessary for it. As Ken says, at every new stage there is a benefit but also some price to pay.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Good point, David. Those higher ethics we espouse apply to everyone — except to me, myself and my buddies/ cronies/ protegés when push comes to shove, right?


Yesterday, current I-I CEO Robb Smith posted an official message to Multiplex forum participants endorsed by Ken Wilber here.


As part of my response I am posting a re-worked exposé by 'anonymous'  found on the Lightgate/Ken Wilber forum.

This updated metaphor for deceptive discourse could be useful in future discussions about group dynamics as it cuts through the fog generated by the games played almost invariably.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The 3-Card Shuffle:

It's really very simple how cultic groups or in-crowds defend the indefensible, and this very much holds true on internet forums as well. They play three very simple cards, which cannot, NO MATTER WHAT, be trumped. What’s remarkable is that self-proclaimed spiritual teachers and their groupies always play those same exact three cards, which are:

(1) The Higher Level Card (i.e. Sorry, it’s just over your head). Sorry, but you’re just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you’re on a lower (less realistic, rational, integral, enlightened, divine etc.) level.

(2) The Projection Card (i.e., I know what you are, but what am I ?). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself and using me as a strawman, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.

(3) The Skillful Means Card (i.e., it’s all your own fault, numbskull). The most potent card of all! It’s not abuse; it’s not pathetic, cowardly, mean-spirited and unethical; it’s a bold challenge for your own good or a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen sticks and “facilitating” on your behalf. So when I use sophisticated tricks of jawboning, either openly or slyly, designed to imply (preferably without appearing to do so), that you're an idiot numbskull, it’s not because I’m an idiot numbskull, it’s because you have an idiot numbskull-complex that you need to evolve past, and I’m here to help you see that. So you owe me some gratitude, idiot, for my selfless sacrifices on your behalf.

Note that these trump cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to promote a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing…and that is exactly the point. They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used when folks know the actual substance of their teaching has run, or is running, dry.


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….



with love and etheric hugs to all,

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Mascha dear,

You know, I wonder if it is the inevitable fate of any “corporation” that management will set itself in opposition to staff, and that the organization as a whole (and by that I mean the leadership, in-house psychophants, and mgt. - not staff) will set itself against its own shareholders and other invested parties.

This attempt to institutionalize a philosophical-spiritual practice seems to have run afoul of strongly conflicting interests - the intentions of self-appointed student/commentator/beta sites like you and I, and mgt's desire to formalize the course work and promote it into the collegiate mainstream.  Against this backdrop of corporate business-minded expansion with its “product,” we “idealists” and otherwise unruly combustibles may well be seen as an expendable liability.  What else would explain why Balder has to wait so long for any respones (if at all) to his certainly legitimate questions?

CEO Robb's response to the comments on Lindsey's firing was petulant, and disrespectful let alone couched in the three untouchable trumps  (a brilliant insight by the way) and KW's post script was pathetic.  The lack of care that Robb and KW took with there comments lets me know clearly that their interests are not with those who are exploring Integral Theory on their own but more with the academics who are considering installing the curriculum of Integral Theory in their universities. 

What I see happening is the attempt to corral Integral Theory into a patentable or “brandable,” copywriteable, intellectual property that can defend itself against outside exploitation.  In some ways, KW's wild west approach, though hugely wasteful of human energy, was still a better environment for the development of integral thought than this CEO-driven bizzness approach of Robb's as the first duty of any CEO is to ensure their own survival.  That is best done by the “branding” process which is authored by the CEO and tattooed with his signature.  KW can still be el Pandito but free of the business wrangle with the exception of the occasional and pathetic post script to his consigliere's utterances.

The I-I is beginning to look more and more like an entrepeneur-driven business than the hothouse for consciousness expansion technology that first atttracted me.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Mascha, you forgot the 4th one, the “Know-it-all” defense. This is labeling anyone that says anything contrary to what someone else says as a “Know-it-all.” It is the passive agressive card in the bunch. The brilliance of this defense is that it cuts down what the other person is saying and also insures a great deal of self-sensorship by that person.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Oh, oh, oh, that is soooo horrible!  I never, ever use that one!!

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Good one, Rick :-) Now that you mention it, yes, the know-it-all defense can also be used in the shuffle. Though I would say that all of them are passive-aggressive power plays. What say you? Are there any more trumps? If everybody puts their minds to it, pretty soon we'll all  be playing with a full deck of cards.

Michael,

“I wonder if it is the inevitable fate of any “corporation” that management will set itself in opposition to staff, and that the organization as a whole (and by that I mean the leadership, in-house psychophants, and mgt. - not staff) will set itself against its own shareholders and other invested parties.”

I have yet to see an organisation that doesn't end up exploiting its members/workers by devouring their energy in a vampiristic fashion to feed its own head (top brass) and assure its continued survival at the expense of the entire body, like a parasite. But there may be exceptions. Others here have looked much further into this. As it stands, I'm a self-employed freelancer working out of my home for a reason. Being ultimately unemployable in the long run is only one of them.

Like you said regarding the I-I handling of legitimate complaints and suggestions from the experts in the trenches, forum-wise: “…we “idealists” and otherwise unruly combustibles may well be seen as an expendable liability.”

This may actually be a reason for treating the most engaged forum participants (or ex-participants by now) with such stunning lack of just plain common sense. Hmm, Colin said something to that effect today.

And this too bears repeating:

Michael:  “The lack of care that Robb and KW took with there comments lets me know clearly that their interests are not with those who are exploring Integral Theory on their own but more with the academics who are considering installing the curriculum of Integral Theory in their universities.”

Well, thank your autonomy for  speaking out  with a voice not cowering to  brow-beatings  dressed up as spiritual truths.  The irony is that no matter what happens to Integral this, that & the other, I still consider Ken a living Buddha. Yes! There, I said it, and his pointing out instructions were among the ones that confirmed for me what I didn't dare to acknowledge on my own, namely that indeed, “All beings are from the very beginning Buddhas. Not knowing it is near, they seek it afar… what a pity!”  (Zen master Hakuin)

Not seeking, we don't need a map.  But exploring all This  from every conceivable angle and challenging each other in the process to go further sure beats setting ourselves up as unassailable know-it-alls, eh, Rick?

Love

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

“Not seeking, we don’t need a map. But exploring all This from every conceivable angle and challenging each other in the process to go further sure beats setting ourselves up as unassailable know-it-alls, eh, Rick?”

I have no idea Mascha, nor any opinion about I-I politics.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Oh, and Mascha, there's also something we can't forget. Sometimes people have a higher level of understanding, sometimes people do project, sometimes people do use skillful means, and sometime people know a lot of shit.

That was what my previous posts were pointing at. The absurdity of bringing green egalitarianism into a forum based upon an understanding of inherent hierarchy.
This I believe, is Integral's Acheales heel. I don't see how anyone can keep Integral from being utilized to undermine Integral.
In the end, I believe that this is why the Buddha had the good sense to not answer questions that didn't deal directly with our immdieate situation and suffering.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Right you are Rick. Absolutely true      

I have thought of mentioning what you said myself, but then I considered the cognitive level of the people reading here and thought, Naah, they don't need me to point out the other half of the truth. They can see.

Love,

M

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Rick, is there any hostility behind your posts in this thread? There definitely was earlier. Are you still feeling hostile? It kinda seems like you are.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

No hostility. There wasn't any earlier either. I think that people were taking my point about all the talk about equality of understanding in this type of forum as me saying that I was a little more equal than others, and that's not what I was saying.
I just think we should be honest about about the whole I-I experiment. There is no such thing as neutral knowledge, we can't say that there is inherent hierarchy of understanding and that it is built into immutable laws governing cognitive development, and not expect some people to be offended, and others to take advantage.
Habermas was right when he said that sometimes political and social systems reproduce themselves, for no other reason than like people tend to favor like people, and that some reproduction over time is inevitable; not just some hegemonic plot by handful of greedy elites.
While he was right, the Chilean government and others have usurped his argument to explain and justify repressive governmental policeis that reflect the former dictatorships that ruled these states.
For us to be naive about all this doesn't help anyone.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Thanks, Durwin. Yes, the idea of authentic self seems so important to me as well. Because we have the personal self and then the self absolute, and then, as you say, two choices: authenticity or deadening. Another way to look at it is that we come to a crossroads, and one road leads into the “new” and the other road leads to the “old.” The new tends to be a bit frightenting, and the personal self will always have some excuse for not wanting to take it (it's not ready yet, it will be so unfamiliar, etc.). The old is stagnant water, a cesspool. So in an evolutionary context we go into the new. That's a teaching of Andrew Cohen, and it's been pretty helpful for me. Of course, it doesn't require that we take up every little new thing that comes along, but we kind of know when it's something we should do, right? At least once we see that there's fresh running water down one road and a cesspool down the other. In this way we become more and more impersonal, more and more ethereal, while maintaining or even enhancing the ability to be personal when appropriate.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Hi there:  Yes, I appreciate your response here very much…I am learning the ways of online forums and I guess the reason my last response “disappeared” from the thread is that I replied to you and not the thread….a question I have is whether you have attended retreat with Cohen and if so, what your experience was like…

Durwin

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Rick, I really like you and you add a lot to the forum, but you come off a little strong sometimes.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Durwin, thank you. Yes, I've been to several Andrew Cohen retreats, and, generally, the experience has been great. The first retreat I went to in 2004 was particularly amazing because I wasn't too familiar with his teachings, and he laid it all out in one weekend. It clarified things tremendously for me. I would recommend going on a long retreat if you can because sometimes the weekend retreats just take a part of the teachings. But the weekends can still be just as powerful. Embracing Heaven and Earth is my favorite book of his.

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Oh I see! You can't handle the strong black expresso of truth! You need your truth watered down with a little cream and sugar! Well I can't do that! I am not here to give you want you want, I am here to give you that real thing, to wake you up from 400 years of sleep son!

(that was a bad Malcom X parody)

Re: Group dynamics and other animals

Right on, Rick. That's the spirit. But we need the full set of tools. We can't always be using the horns, can't always be doing the bull charge. If we use the wrong tool for a particular situation, we will not be waking anyone up, we will be putting them into a deeper sleep. We also need to consider who we're talking to, what their understanding is, what the context of the relationship is, how well we know the person (often a good idea to establish a relationship before bringing out the horns), etc. We always need a double inquiry–in addition to the inquiry into absolute nature in meditation, we need to inquire into our motivations as we act. Am I coming from emptiness, or am I coming from anger? Am I coming from emptiness, or am I coming from hurt? Am I coming from emptiness, or am I coming from frustration? The feeling component of authentic action is bliss, ecstasy, freedom, positivity, care for all. When this is not what we are feeling, we need to be really careful and go easy.