Gaia: Integral Relationships - Theory - Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://creativequesting.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 11:57:56 GMT

I agree completely with what you said, Siona, about both people needing to be deeply committed to their own personal development to have an integral relationship. And what you said about the possibility of two people being cognitively second tier but poorly differentiated is what I was talking about earlier in this thread. Two people might be drawn together because of commonality along the cognitive line but then discover either that they don't have adequate tools in other aspects of the relationship, or that they're mismatched in other aspects.

I don't believe that believing one is the "more developed partner" in certain areas always an ego thing. Bill and I have known since the start of our relationship that one of the many reasons we came together was to support each other's growth in certain areas. He's much more developed than I am in the physical realm (see his 7/8/06 Friday Five post for a glimmer of that), and also more developed in the intellectual realm. I'm much more developed in the emotional realm than he is. We don't come at this from ego -- we use each other's wisdom, modeling, and articulation of experience to grow.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://siona.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:11:04 GMT

I'd be wary that the "more developed partner" - the one in the teacher role - would just be demonstrating and egoic attachment to being the one 'further along.' It's easy to lie to oneself and say that you're in a relationship to help the other person, when in truth you might well be attached to that 'teacher / parental' aspect of your identity. This is why Schnarch says it's important to assume that you and your partner are at the same level, even if you feel further along. As long as you are attached to your partner and need him or her in that fashion, you're demonstrating similar levels of differentiation.

You know, this makes me think that Schnarch's theory is spiral-neutral. I think this dynamic could work itself out between partners who are at different places on the SD spectrum, and I'd even venture that it would be quite possible for two (for example) cognitively 2nd tier folk to be quite poorly differentiated. In writing this now I'm not sure how to incorporate an integral aspect. I think that individual development MUST be an individual project -- individuation, by definition, has to happen alone; healthy human psyches are not need-bound by or to other particular individuals. Toward the end of his book, though, Schnarch discusses the fundamental connection between sexuality and sexual relationships and spirituality, and I think that THIS is where the integral comes into play.

Would it be too much then to say that integral relationships are only truly possible between human beings who are both committed first to their own personal development? That they MUST be committed to their own growth first? This I think would fit best with the views in Passionate Marriage, in which case I'd see an Integral Marriage as starting where that book leaves off.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://siona.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:56:38 GMT

I'd be highly skeptical of someone who saw her commitment to her partner as part of a bodhisattva vow. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd think an enlightened being would understand that her commitment to the enlightenment of all beings could be be expressed more skillfully than through staying with a poorly differentiated lover. I'd be concerned that this person's high-mindedness might allow the other to stay at his level of development, and besides, if the more enlightened partner were truly more differentiated, I don't really see why or how the less differentiated one would stay in the relationship. Relationship dynamics in poorly differentiated persons depend on some kind of need, and if this highly developed person didn't reciprocate in neediness, I'm not sure how the partnership would continue . Too, I know for a fact that it's not uncommon for spiritually developed folk to have major psychological issues: this I think is the more probable dynamic.

I'm not sure how 2) is an objection to Schnarch's theory; it seems to just corroborate how poorly differentiated partners stay together. Maybe you could elaborate?

You wrote "there is a tendency among certain personality types to believe that loving someone can heal their wounds," and this is true but only partial - the other party has to be engaged. I'd say there's yet another part. The 'lover' - the giver of love - has to love him or herself FIRST, and this I think is where the problem occurs.

If the person attempting to "love her partner back to health" doesn't love herself first, how can she be giving authentic love? Love at the expense of one's own self merely demonstrates a misunderstanding of what a universal, authentic Love is: self-abuse in the name of love is hypocritical. I think this is at the crux of that common trap. The person who wants the other to change, and who thinks that love will generate that change, has already demonstrated a deficiency in love; namely, that she needs for her partner to provide her with something. If she were truly able to give love, again, she would love herself enough not to need this change in her partner. Scharch would appreciate this paradox, too; that a person truly able to love himself would not need for his partner to change, and would thus 'free' that person to a) be herself and b) change from her own autonomous drive toward growth.

Anyway, my point is only that the attitude of 'loving someone in order to heal them' does not mean at all the holder of that attitude is well-differentiated or emotionally mature.

(And while I'm here, I finished Passionate Marriage this afternoon. I assume you've read the whole of the book already? I was a little surprised to see that the final chapters draw heavily from, or at least delve into, Wilber's work . . . )

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://biggs.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:52:01 GMT

I wonder how it might be possible (if at all) to reawaken that level of immersion if differentiation has grown to much. If two people, though starting at basically the same level of say conscious development, grow at different speeds; would it merely be a choice for the higher developed person to remain with the lower developed, despite needing to be challenged in that line? The same question would go for emotional levels of development. Basically wouldnt the higher level in essence become the teacher or parent in the relationship; and depending on the strength of their ego, want to funnel all issues through their dominant line? Does that make any sense to anyone?:)

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://biggs.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:37:45 GMT

I think my marriage (seperated now) was definitely in that individuation aspect of relationships. Due to my travels, and our need to have our own identities, we struggled trying to merge our growth spurts. Ultimately, we grew at different rates and different directions. What began as a communial interest in spirituality, eventually led us in different directions; and it was hard for us to speak the same language.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:11:58 GMT

Well, I would say "fusion is a bitch" when it's no good. When it's no good, it does suck, a lot of the time. While, oddly, also being satisfying a lot of the time.

Which is why I use the term 'immersion', to try to signify a state of erotic/emotive pair bonding. (Which is, I tend to think, in a large part a biologic state started and maintained by the couples biochemistry.)

My ideal form of mate relationship includes the immersion, and the capacity to recapture the immersion at any time. Even tho one doesn't want to be in immersion all the time.

Maybe 'fusion' and 'immersion' are two different states, and not two versions of the same state?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://integral-options.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:03:39 GMT

I think that would be an excellent addition, especially Eros and Agape -- I've always liked those concepts.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://umguy.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:46:03 GMT

I wonder if you could add in something having to do with the four drives of a holon. I think it was mentioned on integral naked most recently having to do with politics but it would basically be the idea that you would honor the need for agency, communion, eros (which would be progress in the relationship... you know, trascending and including wherever you've already made it to), and agape (which would be lovingly conserving what has already been built).

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://integral-options.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:34:35 GMT

Hi Siona,

I tend to agree with Schnarch on the differentiation levels of partners. However, there are exceptions that I can offer up.

(1) If one partner is much more developed/differentiated than the other, s/he may view the relationship as part of a bodhisattva vow -- to aid all beings in attaining enlightenment. In addition to whatever physical/emotional bonding material is holding them together, if one partner has the ability to hold the difference as a kind of service, then the relationship might last for a while. Admittedly, this is rare, but I do someone who has described his relationship in this way.

(2) If one or both partners are so insecure/undifferentiated that they cannot imagine their lives without this other person, who is often hated, the relationship can last, oh, say , nearly six years, during which time both people are simultaneously "in love" and bitterly resentful. Been there, done that.

Fusion is a bitch. The lack of boundaries and the inability to define oneself apart from the relationship is excruciating. When a fused couple has to deal with the day to day stuff, everything goes to hell eventually. If there are other emotional issues, including different levels of differentiation and varying degrees of low self-esteem, it can drag on for quite a while.

I think the second example is pretty common in young people, especially idealistic types who think that the other person will change (this is often seen as a "woman issue," but I think men do it, too). In both genders there is a tendency among certain personality types to believe that loving someone can heal their wounds. True but partial -- the other person has to be engaged as well.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://integral-options.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:20:59 GMT

Bill E offered these traits of an integral relationship, which I think are crucial:

(1) Trying to work on several levels* at once.

(2) Trying to communicate between levels*, in the ways that are possible.

I'd like to add a few possible traits:

(3) Awareness of and ability to manage different selves.
(4) Ability to take the role of the partner during conflict. It's easier to do this when everything is good, but a true mark of development is to be able to do it during conflict.
(5) Ability to experience trans-egoic states during intimacy (not just sex, but other forms of intimate bonding as well).

There are probably others. Anyone have other suggestions?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://siona.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:45:46 GMT

Well, Scharch does write that there are two "rules" to differentiation:

We come out of our family of origin at about the highest level of differentiation our parents achieved.
We pick partners at the same level of differentiation as ourselves

(Passionate Marriage, pg. 148)

His claim is that relationships comprised of partners at different levels of differentiation usually break off early; at most, one partner is maybe one mere half-step beyond the other. I'd hazard a guess that the same would be true with the SD levels; it would be hard to maintain a long-term relationship if partners were grossly mismatched. While their centers of memetic gravity might not be exact, I imagine there'd have to be overlap in large areas before any real long term, integral relationship could be discussed.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://creativequesting.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:08:18 GMT

good questions -- and then there's the whole issue of different lines -- for example, I have a sister who's able to grasp fairly advanced concepts intellectually, but she has no emotional capacity to live those concepts -- I'm not well-versed enough in all the stage stuff to get how this all intersects, but it seems to me kind of like another way of saying that someone's center of gravity can be, let's say, greenish-yellow, but they might have a strong blue or orange streak somewhere in their personality that interferes with their capacity for intimacy

I hope someone in this pod who's more centered in their intellect than I am will sort all of this out :)

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://umguy.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:44:37 GMT

I was wondering about this, specifically how to incorporate the idea of levels of development. You have the three phase description of how a relationship progresses:

Fused
Individuated
Integrated (Schnarch's “Differentiation”)

But how is each level experienced by each person. I'm assuming a fused state would be a different experience to someone at the mythic vs. rational vs. plurastic stages of growth. So then two people in a relationship at two different levels of development might have very different experiences of each of the three phases of the relationship?

Do you personally have to have a fairly high level of development to be able to take a relationship to an Integrated level?

Mostly just a bunch of questions.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:13:59 GMT

So, what would be integral characteristics in relationship?

How about...

(1) Trying to work on several levels* at once.

(2) Trying to communicate between levels*, in the ways that are possible.

( * by 'levels' I mean both the SD & early wilber levels, and a broader meaning, levels of experience, levels of 'spirituality, and also the domains of experience, work, home, parenting, and so forth.)

Any others that should be added?

How do you signify giving 'precedence' or 'primary position' to the higher levels, the 'trans-rational' levels? It's hard to express that in a simple sentence.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:04:29 GMT

It seems to me that the "integral" part of relationships is still very mysterious - it might be interesting to try to define it and describe it a bit better. Even if we figure that's going to be very hard to do, it should be thought provoking.

The three stages described sound a lot like the "ages" of most relationships. You start out with young love, full of passion and immersion and oceanics, then middle aged love, where you either individuate or drive each other nuts, then old love, where you treasure the beingness of the other.

Once more I feel shallow - I like that early immersion. I think it's hot to keep that going as long as possible, and reawaken it often.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://brondu.gaia.com — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:03:20 GMT

Hey, this is a great discussion....

I didn't have time to read all of the posts, but it reminded me of Robert Kegan's the Mental Demands of Modern Life where he has an entire chapter about how different "Orders of Consciousness" (which is basically a cognitive scheme outlining vertically heirarchic/ holarchically categorized cognitive capacities/epistemologies) influence relationships. It's interesting... IN Robert's terms "the subject of of one stage becomes the object of the subject of the next". So in relationships it's possible to be experiencing or engaging in the relationship very subjectively and remain unaware that you are actively perpetuating a state of oceanic fusion where the relationship model is based on an undifferentiation of selves, both combined by the magic of unconscious identification.

So with greater differentitation comes greater discrimination as to the dynamic workings of agency and communion within a given relationship, and with a greater awareness of the relationship of one's agency-within-communion comes a paradoxical increase in independance and intimacy because you have (cognitively) gotten yourself to a place where you can adroitly re-enter a the relationship with an established Framework to work from.

I think really the difference is between a visible, objectified Framework-for-relational-emergance and a Framework-for-relational-emergance that operates implicitly and consequently ends up undermining the relationship because a partner should "want what I want, and do it without having to be told" or any other number of fallacies surrounding an inability to step away from the undoubtedly dynamic dynamic of the situation. :)

So is that a model for integral relationships? Approach it from a high cognitive station? No. It' s just a little piece I thought I'd add.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://WHITEWAVE.gaia.com — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:32:12 GMT

Yup.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://WHITEWAVE.gaia.com — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:30:36 GMT

Siona brings up an important point that Kira touched on too ... I think in another thread ... about the different experiences that men have than women. I am assuming that Schnarch is a man, no?

Men will prolly experience progression as a penetrating of barriers, leaving one level behind to achieve the next higher level. Women tend to experience progression as more and more synthesis, opening the embrace ever wider to include more and more. There is, naturally, some crossover and exception, but it's an established pattern. Eventually men arrive at the "level" of integration of all. Women however will integrate more and more as they go up, until they finally integrate the most protected parts - If the man will allow it. Usually the stuff that men don't even want integrated. The "Pre" experience of this is an overdeveloped potential for "communion". In the Integral language, KW will prolly use a totally different word for it than Integrate. However, that is the same erotic urge which has made evolution to Integral even possible. If left in the "Pre" stage, it will be expressed as too much tollerance for the bad behavior and relating patterns. It is counter-productive to evolution in the long run because it doesn't cull the herd - so to speak. It only makes things worse. However, if it is pushed up to the "Trans" stage, it will be expressed as zero tolerance for bad behavior, but absolute love towards the person themself. This situation creates an intolerable "hanging projection" situation which makes dealing with Shadow immediately necessary. Then the final "barrier can be breached", self vs. self, and real exposure and oneness can occur.

This is why, I think, what you're calling "fusion" is a state which can be experienced early. At the beginning, the eyes are still shut about many aspects of who we really are, ourselves. But they are wide open to what we might see in the other person. Since the other person is still hiding a bunch of stuff from themself, first, and also us, we can look and look and still not see anything wrong. The heart opens all the way and amniotic trust is exchanged. BAM! Locked in. As time goes on and the performances begin to crack and split, we see signs of problems and either the eyes close or the heart closes for our own Shadowed reasons. Back and forth it escalates until both can shut down completely. BAM! Locked out.

In the true and final stage of exposure and oneness, the eyes and heart are once again, all the way open, but there is no longer any hiding self from self, so the entire picture of ourselves and our lovers are there for us to see. The eyes and heart are now under our control, and no longer are subject to a blink reflex or heart attack. We choose to look at anything and everything, choose to love anything and everything. Many the icons that show mystical experiences of love or transcendence by our favorite saints and teachers show the person, face, heart or eyes shining or on fire - Alex Grey. Mohammed. Stairing into the sun. Embracing the enemy. Neo letting Smith penetrate him and assimilate him. That's why. The element of openly looking and openly loving was experienced at both stages.

~Ww

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:33:55 GMT

Question: Does relationship development look like moral development in that it is NOT a transcend and include model? I'm thinking that we do not include fusion in our behavioral options when we transcend it, and so on. Does anyone else agree with this?

No. I see emotional fusion as a state. Schnarch is clear that many of the behaviors done from the standpoint of emotional fusion - self-sacrifice, e.g. - can be performed compassionately and authentically after differentiation. That's why fusion has been around for so long: at some level, it seems authentic, selfless, and "higher".

I love the outline of stages here, Bill. I'll need to chew on them a bit.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

http://siona.gaia.com — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:55:29 GMT

This is just a quick note (again, I'm just starting Schnarch's book and I'm eager to get more heavily into this dialog) to add to your last post.

1. Could we see it as a both / and thing? At one level, relationships necessarily transcend and include; after all, the relationship you're in holds contains every instant from the moment you met your partner, and then goes beyond. This might be stretching things a little, but I do think it is one way in which the integral integrity might be maintained.

2. Isn't Absolute Love both a part of a integral relationships, and so much more? I think it's a necessary peak of integral-anything (this may be a bias of mine; I equate pure consciousness / awareness with love), and as such must be at the pinacle of an integral relationship model. Here, though, the point seems almost moot, because if this love is indeed absolute, than it's not just confined to the relationship one has with one's partner, but expands to include the Kosmos as a whole. The integral relationship preceding it is merely (and wonderfully!) a path to that divine realization. Absolute love is the end and the ground, and I think for this reason is hard to include within the relationship model.