Gaia: The Integral Pod - Introduce Yourself - Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://julieaerwin.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:33:59 GMT

I'm up to the body module and thought exactly the same thing Mary. I loved the shadow chapter.

Juliee

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://maryw.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:31:47 GMT

I dig your clarification and emphasis, Arthur (dang, you still have not signed the index in my book yet!) -- and for me it also serves as a reminder that there are potential downsides (misunderstandings, misinterpretations) to reading certain kinds of passages and quotes outside of their original context.

I have been reading that ILP book in a skipping-around kind of way. And it is a wonderful book, BTW -- very accessible and readable! Already a friend of mine -- who generally doesn't like reading theory (and who previously shied away from integral's "overly structured" approach to things) has ordered a copy after flipping through mine. It's the kind of book that makes a great gift -- for integral newbies, oldies, and everything-in-betweenies .... :-)

Mary

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:17:24 GMT

Arthur: (Who do you throw to the sharks - Ghandi, or the plumber who tried to fuck you?)

That's easy. Gandhi was old... probably born as a wrinkly old dude right from the start. And the plumber could fix the leak in the boat!

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:57:08 GMT

maryw: I'm thinking that the idea was to have some kind of pithy, shorthand way to say “take the other person's perspective into consideration when making a decision on how to treat / communicate with / serve / love them.” But there really is a beat missing in “treat others as they would like to be treated.”

~~~

The part of quoted explanation of the Platinum Rule that stands out for me is "The Platinum Rule honors the rich diversity of human sensibilities and structures of awareness by asking advanced ethical practitioners to take the perspective of another and act from that awareness."

It's specifically aimed at "advanced ethical practitioners" and is all about taking the perspectives of others. Like any simplistic ethical formulation, it's a reminder only, a touchstone. There is much more to hold in awareness, and applying it is an art rather than a precise science.

And, I might add, it's a tiny box embedded in an entire chapter on integral ethics in the book Integral life Practice - it's well worth checking out the total context in which the Platinum Rule is situated (which ultimately is the entire book, very much including the Shadow Module chapter). The ethics chapter also talks about vertical versus horizontal ethical practice, the Basic Moral Intuition ("to protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span"), the lifeboat exercise (Who do you throw to the sharks - Ghandi, or the plumber who tried to fuck you?), and much more.

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://grrlrighter.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:20:25 GMT

The implication is that we are to love or "treat" others as God has loved / treated us - and not just how we would like to be treated. Seems like that would mean taking our perspective, the other's perspective, and the perspective of the divine, or the higher Self, all into consideration ...

I really like this.

I think it's hard to conceptually act from a Highest Self place that is always actively evolving. At least, it always has been for me... it creates a kind of standstill in my capacity to act. I find myself thinking, "Is this my Highest Self? What if there's something higher I haven't considered?" Then I freeze up with concern that I'm less than at my Highest... which is a clear indication that I've started thinking too much! This is where I try to turn to Life as Teacher. I take an action as best I can, in each relative moment. Life always gives me the exact feedback I need. My challenge is to stay open to that feedback.

I have a good friend who gave me advice very similar to Mary's, and it helps me from freezing up: "Try to see everyone as the Light of Christ, including yourself." Seeing everyone as a spark of the Divine really helps me employ the Golden and Platinum rule to the best of my ability. For me, it's a great antidote: Say what you need to say, but remember Who you're speaking to. (And Who is speaking!)

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://drane.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:04:28 GMT

Exactly, Mary. The Golden Rule, when read in terms of the "self" (small "s"), is almost as problematic as the Platinum Rule. Would a masochist be justified in also being a sadist (just to take an extreme example)?

I think it's good to keep both in mind and then act from the Highest Self as best we can.

Cheers,
~G

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://maryw.gaia.com — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:55:10 GMT

Mascha & Fication, I agree -- that platinum rule needs to be qualified .... I'm thinking that the idea was to have somekind of pithy, shorthand way to say "take the other person's perspective into consideration when making a decision on how to treat / communicate with / serve / love them." But there really is a beat missing in "treat others as they would like to be treated."

In the Bible there is a kind of "evolution" of the Golden Rule. In John 15: 9-13, Jesus says "I have loved you just as the Father has loved me .... Remain in my love."

The implication is that we are to love or "treat" others as God has loved / treated us -- and not just how we would like to be treated. Seems like that would mean taking our perspective, the other's perspective, and the perspective of the divine, or the higher Self, all into consideration ...

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://fication.gaia.com — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:51:18 GMT

Oh, these are tough questions. This really opens up for some shadow boxing:
- I know what's best for you.
- No, I know what's best for you.
- Who told you to be my teacher?
- Who told you to be my teacher?

Maybe one should add to the road rules something like this:
"When your shadow or an emotional reaction takes over your writing (no matter how much 1-2-3 of shadow you do, sooner or later it will!), you are still responsible for the consequences of your communication (or at least partly)."

Love

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:09:57 GMT

Yeah, I had similar thoughts when reading that bit about the Platinum Rule.

Treating others as they would like to be treated only works if both parties are at a very high level of overall development. If that...

I'll be damned if I treat the plumber who comes on to me wanting sex on the side the way he wants to be treated! ...Or the Senator who is lying through his daVinci-crowned teeth when he promises to fix another social injustice... Or even my best, best friends when they demand more of my time than is healthy for my own sanity.

.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://fication.gaia.com — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:57:07 GMT

A question on the Platinum rule.
"Treat others as they would like to be treated.”

As they want to be done now, or at their highest evolved self?

That is, shall we treat people as they want to be treated, or shall we do what's best for them?

The later implies that I know better what's best for someone than they do themselves!

As a parent I often break the platinum rule because I know better what's best for my son than he does. So, if I do my job he may appreciate and maybe even thank me, but not until he's an adult when he understands.

And I would like that to be the case for me here. If I am clearly deluted, I'd be glad if someone pointed this out to me, despite the fact that I wont like it at that moment!

Here's another example of someone breaking the platinum rule: Gordon Ramsey. :-)

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:24:14 GMT

Arthur, yes, to the extent one's buttons can no longer be pushed---what is perhaps this decade's version of emotional maturity---is one free to see another and appreciate what that other needs and wants in their development, situation, personality, etc. The development underlying the growth of this perspective sounds to me like an emotional version of the "momentous leap" into 2nd tier: integral EQ.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:00:56 GMT

Something else to throw into the stew, from the just-published book Integral Life Practice:

The Platinum Rule

The ability to take wider and deeper perspectives may lead you to higher expressions of traditional ethical dictums. For instance, the Golden Rule, recognized by most religious traditions, essentially says "treat others as you would like to be treated." Yet when you take another's perspective you may discover that the way you would like to be treated differs from the way the other would like to be treated. Hence the Platinum Rule: Treat others as they would like to be treated." The Platinum Rule honors the rich diversity of human sensibilities and structures of awareness by asking advanced ethical practitioners to take the perspective of another and act from that awareness. The philosopher Karl Popper articulated the Platinum Rule when he said, "The Golden Rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done." - Integral Life Practice: a 21st-Century Blueprint for Physical Health, Emotional Balance, Mental Clarity, and Spiritual Awakening, by Ken Wilber et. al.

~~~

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:42:58 GMT

Further by the way, most "you" statements carry more than a whiff of social motivating of the nature I described above. Worth a look.

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:05:53 GMT

By the way, on a practical note, one can practice intention-noticing by aid of assumptions, one being that if the other hurts from something I said, assume you intended that hurt. This assumption is almost certainly the more accurate the better one knows the hurting other. : )

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:58:29 GMT

Elizabeth: Thanks, Arthur. A very timely bump.

~

You're welcome. I thought so too. :)

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:46:53 GMT

Right on, Elizabeth. Let's tarry a bit on Treya's quote. I'll give my own flavour. The how of one’s communication carries a considerable and important element of a communication’s social motivation or intention. Communication is among other things a social phenomenon with social purposes and ends that include the entire gamut of what one wants to get from one’s environment---particularly, how one wants one’s environment (ie, another person) ordered or structured including, centrally, how one wants that other to behave toward me.

This social ordering element often comes through the body-moving how of communication which, depending on one’s level of development, and at a common, interesting end of things, includes a how-by-hurt.

Take communication by means of unkind expression. The way I see it, unkind expression typically knows by some measure (usually spot-on accurate) how the unkind thing-said will hurt the other which, again as I see it, intends, by inducing hurt as such, to motivate the other to be or say or do something or somehow else, in essence to motivate change in the other. This mode is seen clearly when couples fight. One says something intending to hurt the other, the other, no surprise, does feel hurt and pulls a counter-hurting statement from the quiver and fires it over. Further arrows trade positions from quiver to body until someone notices the time, or gets hungry, or something. This basic power struggle usually ends in a slight reordering of turf (external environment, ie, the other) depending on who shot the best and sharpest arrows and how. It’s perhaps no surprise that our word for right relationship is “compatibility,” which etymologically means “co-hurt-ability.”

How to break this cycle? Well, one way is to pay attention to the dynamics in the how space of communication, and to speak them honestly. Very often after a fight, people will say, wanting to make up, “I didn’t mean to hurt you.” IMO, that statement is really quite false in that the sayer (not to mention the other party) was deliberately shooting arrows in the direction of, and typically with astonishing accuracy, very well-intuited hurt zones in the other, this being one of compatibility’s universally recognized modes, and a specialty of this social brain we carry. One could note these dynamics and speak them honestly: “Darling, I should get a gold medal for all those arrows I shot so accurately into those wounds I’ve noticed in you and compiled over the last eight years of our being together. I intended to hurt you and I’m not surprised you did hurt.”

No one is of course responsible for another’s hurt. The feeling of hurt, after all, is actively generated by the other in their body and more or less, IMO, signifies the very areas a person needs to grow to become strong and independent and able to love (ie, to become no longer needy of externals however). This latter point is very important: hurt is, in a sense, the felt doorway to love---it is that precious---and spending the energy of one’s hurt by shooting counterarrows, though perhaps stage appropriate, yet burns that energy in mere further refinements of archery skill. Noticing and saying the social intention of one’s communication, on the other hand---unpackaging, among other things, the how of communication---will open a window to seeing subtle dynamics of me and you and we. And to the extent one is able to walk through the little doorways of one’s own hurt will a person, IME, integrate, become by degrees no longer hurtable, ie, will find lovestrength and will no longer need the other to behave in some particular manner. How sweet, so keep up the fighting!

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://grrlrighter.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:34:10 GMT

Thanks, Arthur. A very timely bump.

I hadn't read this thread, being "new" myself, and I greatly appreciated the nourishing content and conversations. I used to post here and moreso on IN, and I recently came back after a several-year hiatus. I'm intrigued, frustrated, and saddened by the current hashings-out. I want to stick with it, as it's a crucial issue: This is our only method of communication with each other. We don't get the subtleties of body language, vocal nuance, facial expression, visceral contact with personal energy... much as we try to insert them =) *shrugs shoulders*.

So, we can only depend on these 26+ characters on a standard keyboard to convey the vastness that we have to say. The opportunity for misinterpretation is astronomical. Because of this, I do think we need to error on the side of sensitivity, without getting lost in a communal soup. Above, Colin quoted this section from Grace and Grit:

"Learning to focus more on how we say something, not just the content. Often each of us feels totally right about the content, but we both say this "truth" in an unkind or angry or defensive or provocative way. And then we can't understand why the other reacts to the twist in the comment, not the content."

Blessings,
Elizabeth

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:24:30 GMT

<bump>

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://jikishin.gaia.com — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:49:32 GMT

a story,

I'm reminded that I sat beside the, then, president of IONS for a Communications workshop ( given by Virginia Satir). Over breakfast with him the next morning, I recall that I did most of the talking, and yet, that conversation over granola and yogert, resonantly continued to inspire me for years. Dr. Harman had asked the Right questions, in the Right way.

His style of right speech included right listening.

It's good to see that IONS is still asking the right questions.

jiki

Re: Integral Communication/"Right Speech"?

http://pelle.gaia.com — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:16:11 GMT

See also this post where I link to serious research being done by the Boundary Institute on how human consciousness affects Random Number Generators.

Also check out the research by Noetic Sciences, some of their main projects, and if you're interested - distant healing specifically.

Pelle