Howdy all,
I heard recently from a friend that I'm displaying a pattern of "philosophical density" in waves ... on ... off ... on ... off ... and so forth. The comment was preceded by an acknowlegement, correctly stated, that my tendency can be to become entralled with an idea and pursue it almost obsessively, yet in doing so leaving some folks behind as I've left behind what seems to be the basic form I speak from. Yet this is only true on the surface.
Yes it is true that I am entralled with certain ideas and pursue them almost obsessively, but always from within the frame of the basics ... which for me remain fully grounded in the embodied sense of self.
The basics are essential to build upon, as the entire structure of what I've come to call the MythoSelf(tm) Process rests solidly on this foundation. What has occured most recently for me - oh, maybe six or eight months in coming, has been the remarkable clarity I perceive within the model in regard to this foundation. In it's simplest form ...
The essence of all experienc is somatic.
Yet that is a false statement standing on its own. I'd have to state clearly what I mean by somatic, which as I use the word refers to the entire physical organism and how it's formed in the moment of the experience being referenced. This, using the language I prefer, is the ontological ground of the individual, i.e.: the entirety of their physicality including the entire neural network though which they perceive and process sensation and thought.
This later part the processing of sensation and thought gives rise to a semantic form. This form, the semantic, gives rise to what the individual perceives something (an event, an object, an idea ...) means. Yet of course this meaning is applied to that thing by them. This is a subjective process built on the intersubjective experience that contains the individual and forms their subjective stance or perceptions.
As I'm using it the semantic form is any way of representing the experince and/or expressing it that is not the actual somatic representation of the experience itself, even another somatic represenation of it. So the semantic form could be the words used to describe an experience, or abstract symbols used to represent the experience, or a model, vocalization, movement ... whatever have you that is intended to represent the experience.
One of the most powerful aspects of the semantic form is the ability to represent an experience that hasn't yet happened. This can be fed back to the system in a way that generates the somatic response that is perfectly matched to the created semantic form of the experience that hasn't happened yet. This feedback has the effect of generating the somatic form as though the experience was in fact experienced already regardless of the reality of it happening or not.
The semantic form establishes the meaning of things for an individual giving rise to their subjective perceptions and beyond that what they think things mean - as well as generating a reference in the somatic form in reference to the semantic form.
Now if you'll go back you'll see I've already stated that this occurs on the ground of the somatic form the individual holds - the ontological ground - the essence of their being in the world. However, consciously they attach as much weight of "being" to the secondary semantic form of perception and meaning - "thinking" that is ...
So here are the "philosophically dense" basics ... somatic and semantic form ... the technology I call "Soma-Semantic(tm) Modeling" and what the Mythogenic Self(tm) Process rests upon.
Yet there is more that is much, much simpler when it's experienced and not described. Words can indeed generate experience or be used to describe as I have above. However the true essence of the Mythogenic Self(tm) Process is the experience of it NOT the description of it. Regardless of my penchant at times to write like an academic the experience of the Mythogenic Self(tm) Process has very little to do with intellectualizing it. It must be embodied to be experienced.
The audiocasts at http://mythoself.blogspot.com come much, much closer to capturing this essence of the experience. The verbalization of the form brings it much closer to being present for the listerner than these words do the reader. What I know from experience though is that the reader once acquainted with the actual experience often has the sense of the form of the experience revivified from reading these words - as is true of all words these are just reminders and pointers towards the actual experience to be had or had already.
The magic of the interweaving between the somatic and the semantic forms is the exquisite referencing of direct experience that emerging from their entanglement - the "mythic form."
Within this model I've found myself committed to for so long now I've realized that the mythic form is sacred, not just to me but to humanity (IMO). This is the message and the gift of Joseph Campbell ... the transport to the sacred sphere of myth in the hands of a masterful guide. Joseph is the ferryman of Myth and willingly crosses the threshold beyond belief for all those will to journey with him.
Next we meet I'll do my best to honor the late, great Professor Campbell and use some of his flare in retelling this story beyond description, beyond belief and into the sacred body direct.
Best regards,
Joseph
PS - My teleseminar "Beyond Belief ...(tm)" - A Journey into the MythoSelf(tm) Process is happening this week on Thursday the 27th at 2:00 PM and again at 7:00 PM EST (that 14:00 and 19:00 -5 GMT). It's absolutely free but the lines are limited if you are interested get registered ASAP as we are almost fully booked for both time slots ... get yourself in before there's no more room. Looking forward to having you there ...
Get the information and register for the teleseminar at: http://www.beyondnlp.com/mythoexperience.com
Tuesday, October 25
Thursday, October 20
Functional Creation ...
Folks,
I want to remind anyone who’s reading this that I DO NOT propose any kind of “Truth” or “Truths” (note the upper case “T” if you will), just suggestions for your considered consideration. Essentially these are all “models” and as such barely shadows of the “Reality” (again note upper case “R”) they point towards.
Models are designed to allow us to consider specific aspects of “Reality” from a specific perspective creating new “realities” (lower case “r”) as we go. I spent a good deal of time back a few weeks ago differentiating between “Truth” and “Reality” and “truth” and “reality” if this is unfamiliar to you please feel free to review those particular blogs. (Note: I began this with my blog entitled: “Mind as well ... SOCIAL ONTOLOGY 101,” you can view it if you’d like at: http://blognostra.blogspot.com/2005/07/mind-as-well-social-ontology-101.html )
In the service of my recent explorations with you into conceptual modeling I thought it might be interesting to share something much nearer the center of the modeling I myself have been doing in regard to operating intentionally. I posted something earlier today to another closed list of mine which I’m copying out to you here with some additional editing ... I’d love to know what you think. Is this any closer for any of you to how the model of “reality” seems to be as far as you know?
Regarding the tendency to attempt to fit things into a structure that’s familiar or comfortable there is a human tendency towards building typologies, such as the Graves Model I presented in one form a few days ago. Remember it’s just a model and yet it comes from Dr. Graves observations about individuals and societies/cultures and how they have evolved through time as it seemed to him from the perspective he was taking. What I “added” was a bit of a discussion about the neurobiological development that may have accompanied such observations. Let me take it a step or two further into the neurobiology of how we seem to be organized to perceive the world.
The human perceptual nervous system (the entire system by which we sense, perceive and encounter the world) is designed in relation to pattern from every indication. We are basically at a perceptual level “pattern recognition creatures.” There are two possible diametric boundary conditions which we could choose to apply to the construction of these patterns. The boundary of exclusion or the boundary of inclusion. The natural perceptual default position is either “this is NOT like that” or “this is LIKE that.” In terms of meta-programs this would be phrased as “sameness” or “difference” and there is a tendency to a default pattern.
When in the ‘inhibitory’ mode the system will tend to default to “difference,” or “this is NOT like that.” It excludes in favor of safety and security only letting in what is known most intimately. The result of encountering new information is the default to cognitive dissonance and more inhibition.
When the system is in the “excitatory” mode it will tend to default to “sameness” or “this is LIKE that.” It includes in favor of expansion and exploration letting in more data from a position of comfort. The result of encountering new information is the default to creativity and “what if” scenarios built around possibility.
This can be seen as a function of learning how to operate at an appropriate or most useful neurobiological level of awareness. Literally learning to access and use the various abilities of the multi-structured brain to develop the data in an appropriate or most useful way.
First the information comes in ... and it’s just sensory data, nothing more or less. Then having become aware of the sensory experience of the data the system becomes primed in relation to the data and the outcome held. Only now is any judgment about the data made – judgment in this case applying to the relational nature of the data to the outcome. This is primarily a cerebellum based, or “cerebellic” response, not exclusively so and yet most centered in the functionality that the cerebellum is best designed to operate. This is a very fast operation occurring in nanoseconds, layered onto the primary state experience of the individual with simple binary judgments being generated in relation to state and outcome: e.g.: good/bad, right/wrong, friend/foe, towards/away ...
Now the system is “re-primed” and tuned to the cerebellic response – i.e.: binary judgment in relation to outcome. This is followed by a cerebral response nanoseconds later where meaning in relation to the data and the outcome is generated out of the “ground” of the re-primed systemic experience of the data. This will generate a semi-conscious or conscious behavioral response to the data.
This modeling of the perceptual processing structure of the brain is intimately linked with the entire perceptual nervous systems which receives data from the sensory organs AND the motor processes which translate this perceptual processing into behavioral response. What I’m offering here is the simple observation that what we think is intimately connected to how we think it. The ability to consciously develop our ability to use the full capacity of our perceptual nervous system’s potential is an evolutionary step I’m proposing is worth taking or at least taking a look at.
I close with a quote often bandied about in NLP circles ... “There is no substitute for clean sensory filters” ... which I’d like to re-phrase to ... “There is no substitute for being fully present to the perceptual unfolding.”
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Evolutionary Ontologist
P.S. - I hope you are enjoying or at least finding interesting these most recent blogs. It’s my intention to lay some groundwork here for the comments I’ve already made earlier as well as some additional comments I intend to be sharing going forward. Mostly these comments have been and will be observations in the domain of social ontology ... yet taken from an evolutionary standpoint or perspective. Understanding the power of perception I thought to be a good overlay onto the social ontological framework I’d positioned earlier on ... let me know what you think ... there so much I have to learn.
I want to remind anyone who’s reading this that I DO NOT propose any kind of “Truth” or “Truths” (note the upper case “T” if you will), just suggestions for your considered consideration. Essentially these are all “models” and as such barely shadows of the “Reality” (again note upper case “R”) they point towards.
Models are designed to allow us to consider specific aspects of “Reality” from a specific perspective creating new “realities” (lower case “r”) as we go. I spent a good deal of time back a few weeks ago differentiating between “Truth” and “Reality” and “truth” and “reality” if this is unfamiliar to you please feel free to review those particular blogs. (Note: I began this with my blog entitled: “Mind as well ... SOCIAL ONTOLOGY 101,” you can view it if you’d like at: http://blognostra.blogspot.com/2005/07/mind-as-well-social-ontology-101.html )
In the service of my recent explorations with you into conceptual modeling I thought it might be interesting to share something much nearer the center of the modeling I myself have been doing in regard to operating intentionally. I posted something earlier today to another closed list of mine which I’m copying out to you here with some additional editing ... I’d love to know what you think. Is this any closer for any of you to how the model of “reality” seems to be as far as you know?
Regarding the tendency to attempt to fit things into a structure that’s familiar or comfortable there is a human tendency towards building typologies, such as the Graves Model I presented in one form a few days ago. Remember it’s just a model and yet it comes from Dr. Graves observations about individuals and societies/cultures and how they have evolved through time as it seemed to him from the perspective he was taking. What I “added” was a bit of a discussion about the neurobiological development that may have accompanied such observations. Let me take it a step or two further into the neurobiology of how we seem to be organized to perceive the world.
The human perceptual nervous system (the entire system by which we sense, perceive and encounter the world) is designed in relation to pattern from every indication. We are basically at a perceptual level “pattern recognition creatures.” There are two possible diametric boundary conditions which we could choose to apply to the construction of these patterns. The boundary of exclusion or the boundary of inclusion. The natural perceptual default position is either “this is NOT like that” or “this is LIKE that.” In terms of meta-programs this would be phrased as “sameness” or “difference” and there is a tendency to a default pattern.
When in the ‘inhibitory’ mode the system will tend to default to “difference,” or “this is NOT like that.” It excludes in favor of safety and security only letting in what is known most intimately. The result of encountering new information is the default to cognitive dissonance and more inhibition.
When the system is in the “excitatory” mode it will tend to default to “sameness” or “this is LIKE that.” It includes in favor of expansion and exploration letting in more data from a position of comfort. The result of encountering new information is the default to creativity and “what if” scenarios built around possibility.
This can be seen as a function of learning how to operate at an appropriate or most useful neurobiological level of awareness. Literally learning to access and use the various abilities of the multi-structured brain to develop the data in an appropriate or most useful way.
First the information comes in ... and it’s just sensory data, nothing more or less. Then having become aware of the sensory experience of the data the system becomes primed in relation to the data and the outcome held. Only now is any judgment about the data made – judgment in this case applying to the relational nature of the data to the outcome. This is primarily a cerebellum based, or “cerebellic” response, not exclusively so and yet most centered in the functionality that the cerebellum is best designed to operate. This is a very fast operation occurring in nanoseconds, layered onto the primary state experience of the individual with simple binary judgments being generated in relation to state and outcome: e.g.: good/bad, right/wrong, friend/foe, towards/away ...
Now the system is “re-primed” and tuned to the cerebellic response – i.e.: binary judgment in relation to outcome. This is followed by a cerebral response nanoseconds later where meaning in relation to the data and the outcome is generated out of the “ground” of the re-primed systemic experience of the data. This will generate a semi-conscious or conscious behavioral response to the data.
- For instance if the judgment is below the threshold of full behavioral responsiveness, as in moving towards or away from the data – i.e.: it’s just not important enough to trip the behavior response potential switch in the brain/body system so it’s perceived as a neutral stimulus – the color of the walls in a room might be an example of this , then there might only be the most peripheral conscious recognition of that we could call semi-conscious. E.g.: noticing the color of the walls of the room at all.
- If however the judgment is above the threshold level necessary to fire off the switch to behavioral responsiveness there may be a behavioral response which remains only semi-conscious. This response may reside below the threshold of full conscious awareness generating an active, conscious behavioral response. By example this might be walking into an unfamiliar restaurant and selecting a place to sit without really considering it actively. In essence “finding” that you’ve chosen a place to sit without thinking about it in a fully conscious way beforehand. The system is pre-programmed to response to the subtle signals in the environment and react on what might be called “auto-pilot” directing you to choose a favored location in which to sit. In this case it may be only “after the fact” that you’ll notice you even made a choice, and yet upon consideration recognizing the suitability of the choice for you.
- Then there are and will be judgments which reach beyond the threshold level necessary to trip a fully active behavioral response of which you are conscious even as you are acting. This is an immediate conscious behavioral response to the sensory data present. An example here might be seeing someone you know and moving towards them across a crowded room to engage with them. Or smelling something that offensive and moving away without having to consider it twice. These kinds of responses are instantaneous and take advantage of the deep integration of the sensory response system, the ability of the cerebellum’s structures to make virtually instantaneous judgments and the cerebral, conscious response to action. This is a “knowing” response to external data based upon preformed internal criteria sets.
- Finally, for my example there is what I’ll call pre-meditated action which reaches further into the cerebral process and is processed in the frontal lobes where “future action” is considered and organized. This extends the process to include full decision-making about something that hasn’t happened yet. In many cases where the sensory data in relation to which the response will be organized doesn’t yet exist in a realized, manifest form. Yet the system has processed a range of responses in relation to the possible range of sensory data that might and even most likely will be encountered along the continuum being considered. This is the domain of intentionality and where we possess the capacity to bring into being our intentions, this is where intentional decision-making and action reside.
- The integration of the functional properties of the perceptual nervous system organized in relation to the intentional form primes the system to react and respond to specific data encountered to bring about that intentional outcome. This includes priming the system to sort for the data in the environment most useful in relation to bringing about the outcome, as well as noticing for data in the environment most likely to thwart the bringing about of the outcome. In an integrated intentional system there is no default to notice for likeness or difference but an open perceptual system capable of noticing for likeness and difference. This allows the system to remain open without defaulting to inhibitory avoidance or excitatory undifferentiated curiosity.
This modeling of the perceptual processing structure of the brain is intimately linked with the entire perceptual nervous systems which receives data from the sensory organs AND the motor processes which translate this perceptual processing into behavioral response. What I’m offering here is the simple observation that what we think is intimately connected to how we think it. The ability to consciously develop our ability to use the full capacity of our perceptual nervous system’s potential is an evolutionary step I’m proposing is worth taking or at least taking a look at.
I close with a quote often bandied about in NLP circles ... “There is no substitute for clean sensory filters” ... which I’d like to re-phrase to ... “There is no substitute for being fully present to the perceptual unfolding.”
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Evolutionary Ontologist
P.S. - I hope you are enjoying or at least finding interesting these most recent blogs. It’s my intention to lay some groundwork here for the comments I’ve already made earlier as well as some additional comments I intend to be sharing going forward. Mostly these comments have been and will be observations in the domain of social ontology ... yet taken from an evolutionary standpoint or perspective. Understanding the power of perception I thought to be a good overlay onto the social ontological framework I’d positioned earlier on ... let me know what you think ... there so much I have to learn.
Tuesday, October 18
Beginning again ...
So some of you actually made it through or at least past that last blog of mine ... the good Dr. and all ... Grave(s) material as I've said before.
Yet another good doctor friend of mine likes to remind me that it's always best to go back to basics ... and so we shall.
Let me begin by recapping very briefly (this will be the only hard "stuff" I promise - then comes the easy stuff, i.e.: very accessible "stuff"):
Let me repeat some thing from yesterday's blog in a simpler form:
When you consider the world from the filter set of "problem solving" what you'll find are problems.
Now this doesn't much matter if you apply it to you personal life, your relationships, your professional life or career, the local communities we live in, the larger society that we inhabit or even the world at large ... if you organize in relationship to problem solving you'll find problems to solve ... even where problems don't exist.
That's right "... even where they don't exist." Being a "problem solver" is an identity position and when a person identifies with being a certain way they will pretty much do whatever they must to sustain that identity regardless of the cost to themselves or others. So problem solvers don't just organize to find problems they will create them if necessary so they can do what they do and remain who they perceive themselves to be.
Now let's take this two more steps deeper into the rabbit hole:
Yet by the time most people in "Western" society have become "educated" they have been thoroughly enculturated in this very kind of thinking I'm referring to here, i.e.: problem solving. The basic pattern of perception is to notice for "making things better" by finding out "what's not working." This pattern for most people then generalizes out into their personal lives and they begin organizing the same way in their personal lives as well, "What's not working in my life that I can make better."
So the net effect for most educated people, the more highly educated the more this will be true, is to constantly be working on themselves, on their lives, on their relationships, on the world at large ... endlessly running to no avail on the treadmill of working something. Everyone running as fast as they can and getting no where even faster ... losing ground with every step.
The alternative is remarkably simple ... organize in relation to something different ... choose to notice for "what's working."
Choose to perceive the world first as already working perfectly and notice how that's possible. What in fact is working?
First of all you've just made a different set of brain chemicals, a positively concocted neuro-cocktail. This will linger for a minimum of twenty minutes. Each time you organize to notice what's working you have saturated your brain in these positive neuro-chemicals, and your brain will begin to build the capacity to use them more efficiently and effectively over time extending and enhancing the effect as you do.
Next, as you do this repeatedly you take advantage of a natural characteristic of the brain and neurological system, habituation. The tendency to develop and run patterns of habit. In this case the habit you're building is to notice for what's working and to feel good about it. This results over time in the growth of your brain where you run these patterns. You will literally build a bigger brain in relation to these specific patterns, what neuroscientists refer to as neuronal mass.
Now what's happened?
You've begun to develop a new identity, you're becomming a positive person. Just like with the "problem solver" a "positive person" will do whatever they must to maintain this identity. The world will begin to reshape around this identity position to allow it to be maintained.
Now just for kicks ... imagine a life that works, relationships that work, a world at large that works ... would that be news worth spreading around?
If you're interested stay tuned ... more to come.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton
http://www.josephriggio.com
http://mythoself.com
http://mythoself.blogspot.com
http://exquisiteperformance.com
Yet another good doctor friend of mine likes to remind me that it's always best to go back to basics ... and so we shall.
Let me begin by recapping very briefly (this will be the only hard "stuff" I promise - then comes the easy stuff, i.e.: very accessible "stuff"):
- The basic form of human experience is inter-subjectivity, the premise that what is known is only known in relation to other(s)
- The default position one can and does assume is diametric; either exicitatory - i.e.: organized around the positive form of possibility, or inhibitory - i.e.: organized around the negative form of limitation
- The interaction between and among individuals "creates" the world as we know it, literally the interaction between individuals generating a co-creation of reality
- As individuals interact and in the process co-create the reality they share, the system-at-large evolves as a result and the individuals within it make adaptations co-evolving with it
- The result of the adaptations made by the individuals within a system-at-large give the system form and generate the contextual conditions for the neurobiological evolution of the species, i.e.: our brains evolve gaining neurological access and integration unavailable previously.
Let me repeat some thing from yesterday's blog in a simpler form:
When you consider the world from the filter set of "problem solving" what you'll find are problems.
Now this doesn't much matter if you apply it to you personal life, your relationships, your professional life or career, the local communities we live in, the larger society that we inhabit or even the world at large ... if you organize in relationship to problem solving you'll find problems to solve ... even where problems don't exist.
That's right "... even where they don't exist." Being a "problem solver" is an identity position and when a person identifies with being a certain way they will pretty much do whatever they must to sustain that identity regardless of the cost to themselves or others. So problem solvers don't just organize to find problems they will create them if necessary so they can do what they do and remain who they perceive themselves to be.
Now let's take this two more steps deeper into the rabbit hole:
- If we go back to the basic idea that we co-create reality and you gather a group of "problem solvers" imagine all the problems they'll find to be solved, even creating them along the way as necessary
- If the system-at-large creates the conditions for the individuals within it to evolve in relation to those conditions, and the conditions are built in relation to problems, the way the individuals within it will evolve will also be in relation to problems
Yet by the time most people in "Western" society have become "educated" they have been thoroughly enculturated in this very kind of thinking I'm referring to here, i.e.: problem solving. The basic pattern of perception is to notice for "making things better" by finding out "what's not working." This pattern for most people then generalizes out into their personal lives and they begin organizing the same way in their personal lives as well, "What's not working in my life that I can make better."
So the net effect for most educated people, the more highly educated the more this will be true, is to constantly be working on themselves, on their lives, on their relationships, on the world at large ... endlessly running to no avail on the treadmill of working something. Everyone running as fast as they can and getting no where even faster ... losing ground with every step.
The alternative is remarkably simple ... organize in relation to something different ... choose to notice for "what's working."
Choose to perceive the world first as already working perfectly and notice how that's possible. What in fact is working?
- What's working in your life? Regardless of how simple or mundane begin by noticing for and finding something that requires no work on your part whatsoever ... something that's already working perfectly by any measure.
- What's working in your relationships? Identify a relationship you have, in spite of how casual it may be or loose the association, that simply works well ... somebody with whom you get along, even if it's only the person you buy coffee from each morning for the ten seconds that takes.
- What's working in the world at large? Find one article in the news about something positive that's happened today or even just something that went exactly as it should have ... high tide came just as expected.
First of all you've just made a different set of brain chemicals, a positively concocted neuro-cocktail. This will linger for a minimum of twenty minutes. Each time you organize to notice what's working you have saturated your brain in these positive neuro-chemicals, and your brain will begin to build the capacity to use them more efficiently and effectively over time extending and enhancing the effect as you do.
Next, as you do this repeatedly you take advantage of a natural characteristic of the brain and neurological system, habituation. The tendency to develop and run patterns of habit. In this case the habit you're building is to notice for what's working and to feel good about it. This results over time in the growth of your brain where you run these patterns. You will literally build a bigger brain in relation to these specific patterns, what neuroscientists refer to as neuronal mass.
Now what's happened?
You've begun to develop a new identity, you're becomming a positive person. Just like with the "problem solver" a "positive person" will do whatever they must to maintain this identity. The world will begin to reshape around this identity position to allow it to be maintained.
- If we go back to the basic idea that we co-create reality and you gather a group of "positive people" imagine all the positive things they'll find, even creating them along the way as necessary
- If the system-at-large creates the conditions for the individuals within it to evolve in relation to those conditions, and the conditions are built in relation to what's working, the way the individuals within it will evolve will also be in relation to what's working
Now just for kicks ... imagine a life that works, relationships that work, a world at large that works ... would that be news worth spreading around?
If you're interested stay tuned ... more to come.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton
http://www.josephriggio.com
http://mythoself.com
http://mythoself.blogspot.com
http://exquisiteperformance.com
Monday, October 17
Now We Get To IT!
This is the posting you’ve been waiting for ... Join the Evolution!!!
Good morning to everyone (in spite of what time zone you’re in or when you might be reading this ...),
Consider this a wake up call if you will. I’ve been pursuing an idea on this blog for some time now regarding the ideas of social ontology, the co-creation of reality. This posting begins a new direction for this blog by laying out the foundations for a methodology to advance the evolution of such a social ontology.
The underlying idea contained within the premise social ontology as I use it has been inter-subjectivity vs. subjectivity, the realization that our awareness of the world is in actuality the interplay of all the interactions we have been imprinted by throughout the time of our life. Without our conscious awareness or knowledge these imprints have formed our conceptions of the world over time.
These imprints are cumulative and have at least two layers of impact upon us:
These two layers of impact combine to create a harmonic third form which is the inclusion of the adaptations already achieved that are present in the context of the unfolding experience, in other words the adaptations others have already made. This is like a turbo-charging of the updating process such that we don’t necessarily need to learn these adaptations on our own from our own experiences or from the events we ourselves are present to as the sole form of learning and adaptation.
The maps/templates/patterns of the primary adaptations of being human are fully formed and available for us to incorporate immediately as our neurology is capable of including them, without the need for us to develop each of them on our own.
Many of these adaptations have been developed within the species as a response to the challenges of being human and as such are based or formulated within the premise of an a priori “problem state.” This “problem state” bias from which the development and incorporation of many adaptations has been generates a specific kind of response to the world and the experience of being in it. It is one of my propositions that this “problem state” bias has within its essential structure the demand to organize around and in relation to “problems,” and includes the essential quality of perceiving the world and the events that unfold within it through a “problem state” filter. This filter generates in turn behavioral responses organized around and in relation to “problems.” This organization around and in relation to the “problem state” generalizes and forms a recursive loop continuing the “problem state” itself.
The essential premise of that I’m proposing is:
The “problem state” bias in and of itself is the basis for the continuance of the “problem state” - and only by arriving at and operating around and in relation to something other than “problems” (to be solved) can the human species itself evolve beyond the problems encountered to date as a result of simply being human and holding this bias intact. Essentially the time has come for the human species as a whole and at large to go to where they “problems are not.” For most people encountering the premise for the first time this is largely unimaginable – and yet the premise itself contains the necessary considerations to make it manifest and realized as the birthrite of the species.
Let me step aside for a moment ...
These adaptations I’m referring to are the means for interaction in the world that allow us to move in and through it elegantly. These are the means to recognize and respond to the unfoldment of experience in an ongoing moment to moment manner, as well as to make sense of the unfolding of events through time. These adaptations organize the response potential available to us in every moment, i.e.: the range of response available to us as individuals in regard to any given event. The responses I point to are both ways of being and ways of behaving, yet the only available external, observable data is contained in the range of behaviors, which include both cognition and speech acts as well as all other behavioral responses that are possible. From these external, observable behavioral responses the patterns of adaptation available to the individual become known to others.
As these adaptations are expressed and known to others they become available to others based on the neurological development and capability of these others. Over time the system of individuals present to such adaptations increase the range of the behavioral response available to them as a society/culture, i.e.: the adaptations begin to spread through the society/culture as they become more available within that society/culture. The baseline of the adaptation available within any given society/culture raises to the level of the adaptation of the majority of the individuals operating within it. An individual within any given society/culture operating within a given range of adaptation will have greater likelihood of access to that level of adaptation than an individual operating in a society/culture not presently accessing that range of adaptation, thus creating the organizing paradigm for the adaptation level from which any given culture/society operates at large.
Both individuals and societies/cultures have a given range of adaptation available to them which are organized in relation to the capacity of these individuals and societies/cultures to incorporate and operate the given adaptation.
These adaptations that become available are realized as “value memes” in the Graves’ Model of Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of the Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems. These are referred to by Graves according to a numerically labeled, hierarchical system of values evolution ranging at this time from 1-8 with 1-6 fully described by Dr. Graves and 7-8 with less fully formed descriptions available from Dr. Graves himself. Dr. Graves indicated a continuing spiral of this evolution through at least a level 12. However, what’s most interesting for the conversation I’m opening with you is the aspect of how the first six levels on the Graves’ Model can be plotted against societal/cultural historical evolution. The basic concept here is that the historical events of any given society/culture can be plotted in relation to the Graves’ Model and a societal/cultural evolution can be described in relation to this model using these events as the basis of the description.
What is further suggested by Dr. Graves using his model is that the situation any given society/culture finds itself experiencing is in relation to the value memes that created the circumstances for that particular experience to manifest. The individuals within any society/culture will experience the situation from the position of the value meme they are operating from when considering the situation in question, including the consideration of the society at large. These value memes are dynamic in the sense that they are malleable along the entire continuum of the value memes that have been realized by the individual already and incorporated as realized or manifest patterns in their individual neurologies. While the potential for further evolution is surely possible this model does not directly address the limits or means the evolution of value memes in terms of a direct methodology for generating such an evolution, except to say that as an individual and/or society/culture become both exposed to the need for evolution and the presence of prior evolution by others the movement through the hierarchical value memes becomes available.
We could call this evolution that Dr. Graves discovered and codified a movement through the adaptations available to humans to address the contingencies of the world they find themselves living within. What Graves focused his attention on in his research was uncovering the values held by various individuals and then as applied to societies/cultures and further codifying these into his model. These values would manifest as perceptions about the events experienced leading to the meaning applied to such events. Through the accessing of these values as described within the Graves’ Model specific behavioral responses would manifest in regard to the events experienced. The manifestation of specific behavioral responses in regard to the adaptations of the individual (and therefore the societies/cultures comprised of such individuals) is where I have placed my attention in considering this model and the impact of it.
So this brings me back around to the intention behind these postings as well as to some indication of where I’m going with all this:
Why I find this significant is because the clash of values systems throughout the world’s societies/cultures and even more locally between individuals is among the greatest cause of conflict that arises. When more individuals hold a greater range of adaptations they have incorporated at a neurological level their ability to choose their perceptual experience and the behavioral response generated increases as well. When there is a greater range of response available to the system at large more options become available for addressing the specific manner in which a given situation is addressed and conflict can me reduced, minimized or possibly even eliminated as a result.
This reduction in conflict within the species is a necessary component for the evolution of the species beyond the environmental, social and cultural pillage and rape scenario that has plagued human history to date in my estimation. In essence we as a species must become more capable of a greater range of response to the challenges of being human and moving among ourselves and upon this world than we’ve ever had available to us prior to this moment in time. Where in the past the system could absorb the perturbations of conflict, the density of the system has increased to the point where such perturbations are becoming dangerous to the continuance of the system at large – literally not only threatening the human species chances of continued survival, but that of life on the planet as we know it to be as well.
My intention has been and continues to be to map a specific methodology of evolution of the behavioral response available to an individual, based upon the development of the neurological capacity for incorporating higher levels of adaptation and the inclusion of such adaptations by any given individual so that we- as both individuals and as a species - can evolve beyond the embedded “problem state” bias that has been the basis of much of human individual and social/cultural evolution to date and continue to evolve beyond this bias finding ourselves instead going to where the problems are not ...
It seems to me that a species with so many unique gifts available to it to alter it’s environment as we have available to us as a species has a requisite obligation to use those gifts whenever and where ever possible in the interest of the larger system, which includes the consideration not only of the individual or the species as a whole but also the greater contextual system within which they are contained – and the impact upon the system and all it’s inhabitants.
That’s all for today (tomorrow I’ll spend some time with you looking at some of Graves higher levels ... beyond that, who knows?).
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D. - Architect and Designer of the MythoSelf® Process
Posted in conjunction with Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton
If this message makes sense to you or even that you find yourself just interested in where I’m going with all of this please help me to extend this conversation beyond the limits of the existing readership of this blog today. First before you do anything else sign-up for a direct email feed of this blog as it’s posted – you’ll only get an email of this blog and nothing else this is a forwarding service only. Then, please forward this message in whole to whomever you think might also find it interesting and benefit from having access to it and becoming engaged in the dialogue around and in relation to it. It is my fervent mission to make this message available to the largest group of interested individuals possible in the interests of the potential evolution in consciousness within the species. Let me know what I can do to help you to do your part in helping me to potentially help us all.
Copyright 2005 Joseph Riggio, Ph.D. - All rights reserved. You may distribute this posting freely “as is” with neither deletion, substitution or alteration of any kind, keeping intact both this copyright notice and the note below.
NOTE: Bringing about the future will require a different set of adaptations then we as a species have had available to us in the past that has created our past as well as our present ... it is the mission of the Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton to bring about to the greatest extant we are capable of the opportunity for the evolution of consciousness required to create the future most desirable for the continuation of the system at large. We propose to do this through the ongoing development of those methodologies which most promote the availability of the highest levels of human adaptation to the greatest number of people possible ... feel free to join the evolution!
Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton
Tools 4 Conscious Evolution
Tools 4 Conscious Evolution
Good morning to everyone (in spite of what time zone you’re in or when you might be reading this ...),
Consider this a wake up call if you will. I’ve been pursuing an idea on this blog for some time now regarding the ideas of social ontology, the co-creation of reality. This posting begins a new direction for this blog by laying out the foundations for a methodology to advance the evolution of such a social ontology.
The underlying idea contained within the premise social ontology as I use it has been inter-subjectivity vs. subjectivity, the realization that our awareness of the world is in actuality the interplay of all the interactions we have been imprinted by throughout the time of our life. Without our conscious awareness or knowledge these imprints have formed our conceptions of the world over time.
These imprints are cumulative and have at least two layers of impact upon us:
- The first layer of impact is the inclusion of the data/information present in the interaction into our content awareness of the world and our experience in it.
- The second layer of impact is the necessity of adaptation to the unfolding experience we are present to in an ongoing way.
These two layers of impact combine to create a harmonic third form which is the inclusion of the adaptations already achieved that are present in the context of the unfolding experience, in other words the adaptations others have already made. This is like a turbo-charging of the updating process such that we don’t necessarily need to learn these adaptations on our own from our own experiences or from the events we ourselves are present to as the sole form of learning and adaptation.
The maps/templates/patterns of the primary adaptations of being human are fully formed and available for us to incorporate immediately as our neurology is capable of including them, without the need for us to develop each of them on our own.
Many of these adaptations have been developed within the species as a response to the challenges of being human and as such are based or formulated within the premise of an a priori “problem state.” This “problem state” bias from which the development and incorporation of many adaptations has been generates a specific kind of response to the world and the experience of being in it. It is one of my propositions that this “problem state” bias has within its essential structure the demand to organize around and in relation to “problems,” and includes the essential quality of perceiving the world and the events that unfold within it through a “problem state” filter. This filter generates in turn behavioral responses organized around and in relation to “problems.” This organization around and in relation to the “problem state” generalizes and forms a recursive loop continuing the “problem state” itself.
The essential premise of that I’m proposing is:
The “problem state” bias in and of itself is the basis for the continuance of the “problem state” - and only by arriving at and operating around and in relation to something other than “problems” (to be solved) can the human species itself evolve beyond the problems encountered to date as a result of simply being human and holding this bias intact. Essentially the time has come for the human species as a whole and at large to go to where they “problems are not.” For most people encountering the premise for the first time this is largely unimaginable – and yet the premise itself contains the necessary considerations to make it manifest and realized as the birthrite of the species.
Let me step aside for a moment ...
These adaptations I’m referring to are the means for interaction in the world that allow us to move in and through it elegantly. These are the means to recognize and respond to the unfoldment of experience in an ongoing moment to moment manner, as well as to make sense of the unfolding of events through time. These adaptations organize the response potential available to us in every moment, i.e.: the range of response available to us as individuals in regard to any given event. The responses I point to are both ways of being and ways of behaving, yet the only available external, observable data is contained in the range of behaviors, which include both cognition and speech acts as well as all other behavioral responses that are possible. From these external, observable behavioral responses the patterns of adaptation available to the individual become known to others.
As these adaptations are expressed and known to others they become available to others based on the neurological development and capability of these others. Over time the system of individuals present to such adaptations increase the range of the behavioral response available to them as a society/culture, i.e.: the adaptations begin to spread through the society/culture as they become more available within that society/culture. The baseline of the adaptation available within any given society/culture raises to the level of the adaptation of the majority of the individuals operating within it. An individual within any given society/culture operating within a given range of adaptation will have greater likelihood of access to that level of adaptation than an individual operating in a society/culture not presently accessing that range of adaptation, thus creating the organizing paradigm for the adaptation level from which any given culture/society operates at large.
Both individuals and societies/cultures have a given range of adaptation available to them which are organized in relation to the capacity of these individuals and societies/cultures to incorporate and operate the given adaptation.
These adaptations that become available are realized as “value memes” in the Graves’ Model of Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of the Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems. These are referred to by Graves according to a numerically labeled, hierarchical system of values evolution ranging at this time from 1-8 with 1-6 fully described by Dr. Graves and 7-8 with less fully formed descriptions available from Dr. Graves himself. Dr. Graves indicated a continuing spiral of this evolution through at least a level 12. However, what’s most interesting for the conversation I’m opening with you is the aspect of how the first six levels on the Graves’ Model can be plotted against societal/cultural historical evolution. The basic concept here is that the historical events of any given society/culture can be plotted in relation to the Graves’ Model and a societal/cultural evolution can be described in relation to this model using these events as the basis of the description.
What is further suggested by Dr. Graves using his model is that the situation any given society/culture finds itself experiencing is in relation to the value memes that created the circumstances for that particular experience to manifest. The individuals within any society/culture will experience the situation from the position of the value meme they are operating from when considering the situation in question, including the consideration of the society at large. These value memes are dynamic in the sense that they are malleable along the entire continuum of the value memes that have been realized by the individual already and incorporated as realized or manifest patterns in their individual neurologies. While the potential for further evolution is surely possible this model does not directly address the limits or means the evolution of value memes in terms of a direct methodology for generating such an evolution, except to say that as an individual and/or society/culture become both exposed to the need for evolution and the presence of prior evolution by others the movement through the hierarchical value memes becomes available.
We could call this evolution that Dr. Graves discovered and codified a movement through the adaptations available to humans to address the contingencies of the world they find themselves living within. What Graves focused his attention on in his research was uncovering the values held by various individuals and then as applied to societies/cultures and further codifying these into his model. These values would manifest as perceptions about the events experienced leading to the meaning applied to such events. Through the accessing of these values as described within the Graves’ Model specific behavioral responses would manifest in regard to the events experienced. The manifestation of specific behavioral responses in regard to the adaptations of the individual (and therefore the societies/cultures comprised of such individuals) is where I have placed my attention in considering this model and the impact of it.
So this brings me back around to the intention behind these postings as well as to some indication of where I’m going with all this:
Why I find this significant is because the clash of values systems throughout the world’s societies/cultures and even more locally between individuals is among the greatest cause of conflict that arises. When more individuals hold a greater range of adaptations they have incorporated at a neurological level their ability to choose their perceptual experience and the behavioral response generated increases as well. When there is a greater range of response available to the system at large more options become available for addressing the specific manner in which a given situation is addressed and conflict can me reduced, minimized or possibly even eliminated as a result.
This reduction in conflict within the species is a necessary component for the evolution of the species beyond the environmental, social and cultural pillage and rape scenario that has plagued human history to date in my estimation. In essence we as a species must become more capable of a greater range of response to the challenges of being human and moving among ourselves and upon this world than we’ve ever had available to us prior to this moment in time. Where in the past the system could absorb the perturbations of conflict, the density of the system has increased to the point where such perturbations are becoming dangerous to the continuance of the system at large – literally not only threatening the human species chances of continued survival, but that of life on the planet as we know it to be as well.
My intention has been and continues to be to map a specific methodology of evolution of the behavioral response available to an individual, based upon the development of the neurological capacity for incorporating higher levels of adaptation and the inclusion of such adaptations by any given individual so that we- as both individuals and as a species - can evolve beyond the embedded “problem state” bias that has been the basis of much of human individual and social/cultural evolution to date and continue to evolve beyond this bias finding ourselves instead going to where the problems are not ...
It seems to me that a species with so many unique gifts available to it to alter it’s environment as we have available to us as a species has a requisite obligation to use those gifts whenever and where ever possible in the interest of the larger system, which includes the consideration not only of the individual or the species as a whole but also the greater contextual system within which they are contained – and the impact upon the system and all it’s inhabitants.
That’s all for today (tomorrow I’ll spend some time with you looking at some of Graves higher levels ... beyond that, who knows?).
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D. - Architect and Designer of the MythoSelf® Process
Posted in conjunction with Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton
If this message makes sense to you or even that you find yourself just interested in where I’m going with all of this please help me to extend this conversation beyond the limits of the existing readership of this blog today. First before you do anything else sign-up for a direct email feed of this blog as it’s posted – you’ll only get an email of this blog and nothing else this is a forwarding service only. Then, please forward this message in whole to whomever you think might also find it interesting and benefit from having access to it and becoming engaged in the dialogue around and in relation to it. It is my fervent mission to make this message available to the largest group of interested individuals possible in the interests of the potential evolution in consciousness within the species. Let me know what I can do to help you to do your part in helping me to potentially help us all.
Copyright 2005 Joseph Riggio, Ph.D. - All rights reserved. You may distribute this posting freely “as is” with neither deletion, substitution or alteration of any kind, keeping intact both this copyright notice and the note below.
NOTE: Bringing about the future will require a different set of adaptations then we as a species have had available to us in the past that has created our past as well as our present ... it is the mission of the Applied Behavioral Technologies Institute | Princeton to bring about to the greatest extant we are capable of the opportunity for the evolution of consciousness required to create the future most desirable for the continuation of the system at large. We propose to do this through the ongoing development of those methodologies which most promote the availability of the highest levels of human adaptation to the greatest number of people possible ... feel free to join the evolution!
Thursday, October 13
Grave(s) Thinking ...
Howdy folks,
Last we met I began opening a topic I consider to be of the greatest possible concern to the unfoldment of the world as we are currently experiencing it today.
Way back when, as early as 1959 and fully presented by 1970 in his major published article, “Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values” in The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10 No 2, pp 131-154, Dr. Clare W. Graves began developing and presenting a theory of values that he later referred to as: “The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of the Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems.” In simpler language what he was expressing was an idea that humans evolve socially within the cultures they exist within and develop as individuals. In turn the culture that is made of up these individuals evolves as well over time as it becomes populated by those evolved individuals.
What Dr. Graves proposed was a model of alternating levels of evolutionary development in regard to the values that individuals internally hold and operate from and express behaviorally. I hold that this expression is the more significant aspect of the cultural form than the internal value set held, as it is only through the externalized behavior that the values become manifest.
Possibly the most critical comment that I can make here is to point out that the Graves Values Model (as I’ll refer to the “Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems”) is not a static personality typology. It is not a statement of what a person “is” in some essential way that fixed. Instead it first references the expression of a set of values held as they are behaviorally expressed. This expression can and does can with some degree of fluidity in any given individual, to some extent within sectors of any given society/culture and less so within the society/culture at large. The expression of the values sets as behavioral manifestations is dynamically available to the individual/culture to the extent and degree that they have evolved, i.e.: up to and including the values they have internalized and have built the capacity for holding and operating from and in relation to. I hold that these behavioral expressions are linked to the operational capacity of the brain structures and their interactivity and integration (or lack thereof) of the individual in question or the individuals comprising the society/culture in question.
Ah, how quickly we complicate things, eh? However let me restate all this as simply as I can:
Every individual, and by virtue of the individuals who comprise it every society/culture as well, has a given developed capacity for response that they have evolved in regard to the values that they hold in the particular form in which these values are held.
There is proposition that I am putting forth that there is also a component of neurobiological cognitive access as a function of that particular individual’s neurobiological development that is available to any given individual, which limits the perceptual capacity of that individual and therefore the values that can be realized, held and acted upon by them (JSR, not Clare W. Graves). This neurobiologicial development precedes the epistemological form in which the values of any given individual are held and therefore acted upon by them.
This all leads us to the consideration of what this all means:
Dr. Graves’ “Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems”
The application of this model to the considerations of human life
The neurobiological capacity of the individual, and
What are the possibilities for developing increased neurobiological capacity and therefore the associated cognitive access available when there is greater neurobiological capacity – and the resultant behavior repertoire that would likely be present as well
Well all this for another time ... next we meet. In the meantime I recommend:
http://www.clarewgraves.com
http://www.spiraldynamics.org
http://www.spiraldynamics.net
As a few of the sources where you can begin to develop a greater understanding of this model on your own as I begin to expand upon it with you from my own particular point of view.
For today ...
Joseph
Last we met I began opening a topic I consider to be of the greatest possible concern to the unfoldment of the world as we are currently experiencing it today.
Way back when, as early as 1959 and fully presented by 1970 in his major published article, “Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values” in The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10 No 2, pp 131-154, Dr. Clare W. Graves began developing and presenting a theory of values that he later referred to as: “The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of the Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems.” In simpler language what he was expressing was an idea that humans evolve socially within the cultures they exist within and develop as individuals. In turn the culture that is made of up these individuals evolves as well over time as it becomes populated by those evolved individuals.
What Dr. Graves proposed was a model of alternating levels of evolutionary development in regard to the values that individuals internally hold and operate from and express behaviorally. I hold that this expression is the more significant aspect of the cultural form than the internal value set held, as it is only through the externalized behavior that the values become manifest.
Possibly the most critical comment that I can make here is to point out that the Graves Values Model (as I’ll refer to the “Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems”) is not a static personality typology. It is not a statement of what a person “is” in some essential way that fixed. Instead it first references the expression of a set of values held as they are behaviorally expressed. This expression can and does can with some degree of fluidity in any given individual, to some extent within sectors of any given society/culture and less so within the society/culture at large. The expression of the values sets as behavioral manifestations is dynamically available to the individual/culture to the extent and degree that they have evolved, i.e.: up to and including the values they have internalized and have built the capacity for holding and operating from and in relation to. I hold that these behavioral expressions are linked to the operational capacity of the brain structures and their interactivity and integration (or lack thereof) of the individual in question or the individuals comprising the society/culture in question.
Ah, how quickly we complicate things, eh? However let me restate all this as simply as I can:
Every individual, and by virtue of the individuals who comprise it every society/culture as well, has a given developed capacity for response that they have evolved in regard to the values that they hold in the particular form in which these values are held.
There is proposition that I am putting forth that there is also a component of neurobiological cognitive access as a function of that particular individual’s neurobiological development that is available to any given individual, which limits the perceptual capacity of that individual and therefore the values that can be realized, held and acted upon by them (JSR, not Clare W. Graves). This neurobiologicial development precedes the epistemological form in which the values of any given individual are held and therefore acted upon by them.
This all leads us to the consideration of what this all means:
Dr. Graves’ “Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems”
The application of this model to the considerations of human life
The neurobiological capacity of the individual, and
What are the possibilities for developing increased neurobiological capacity and therefore the associated cognitive access available when there is greater neurobiological capacity – and the resultant behavior repertoire that would likely be present as well
Well all this for another time ... next we meet. In the meantime I recommend:
http://www.clarewgraves.com
http://www.spiraldynamics.org
http://www.spiraldynamics.net
As a few of the sources where you can begin to develop a greater understanding of this model on your own as I begin to expand upon it with you from my own particular point of view.
For today ...
Joseph
Friday, October 7
Getting "IT" Done ...
'afternoon,
(I'd have said "Good Morning" but I'm getting started later than usual today with this - I'm presenting a free teleseminar tomorrow at 2:00 PM - EST and I've been busy getting the word out so to speak - if you're interested go to: Beyond Hypnosis ...(tm) you can get all the information there.)
So anyway ... here we are again in (not so) sunny NJ and I'm still contemplating the same things ... essentially how the world works, how people fit into the overall scheme of things ... and like so many others where's my slot?
Yet none of this has the dreadful lugubriosness of most existentialists ... it's not "dreadful" to me that life is unfolding without checking in with me first. For me this is in fact exciting. My questions are really more about: "What going on that I could be paying attention to that I haven't yet ... that will open up more of what unfolding to me?"
So it's about adventure for me (another theme of mine ...).
How to get onto the merry-go-round not off it ... see I think being human is about being in the game not out of it.
Yet this is of course how so many "play" at being human ... they look to see how they can get off or out of the game ... how they can build nice comfortable lives ... how little they can rock the boat. Yet there's no precedent for this behavior in the rest of creation. "Life" is about risk ... taking risk and moving forward. And not moving forward just independently as an individual, but moving forward as a species. It's the whole species that jumps when an individual moves themselves forward ... the risk is often individual, but the boon is shared!
This you can see is an excellent biological strategy ... spread the risk over the population by limiting the impact to a small a sub-population as possible (a single individual if that's possible) and then spread the boon out as far into the population as possible. This is about as well engineered a strategy for evolutionary development as you could design.
Then add in "transformational" potential - i.e.: a "pop" in the system that's not purely evolutionary ... a literal jump over a number of intervals, or across a theme that can't be accounted for linearly. Now you've added a quantum element to the strategy.
An example of this could be language ... a "pop" that occurs when sounds go from expressing emotion or even intent to representing abstractions. This can't be processed linearly ... it's a quantum movement. Yet of course once any quantum movement has occured it's obvious that the potential for that quantum movement was always present in the system.
This is not to say that the system doesn't also have to "evolve" to a prepared state capable of accessing the non-manifest potentiality. There has to be the capacity in the system for the potentiality that pre-exists the extant form to become manifest in that particular system.
This is a critical distinction - that the system has to have evolved the capacity for the potential that pre-exists the extant from to become manifest in that particular system.
We could compare the "evolution" of humans and chimpanzees here by example. We are much more similar than we are different. Yet there seems to be little capacity for chimpanzees to use the abstractions of "society" or "civilization" that we use by default. For instance their inability to desensitize the territorial aggression they display. We too have a default imprint for territorial aggression, and we've displayed it with disasterous results more than once as a species - in fact it's much more quantifiably evident in our history that this is more the norm than not. Yet, we have been able to build societies of such density as to be unimaginable - regardless of resource levels - for any other primates. We do this largely by conscious and societal choice to desensitize our imprint to territorial aggression.
However, I go astray ... I said I was going to discuss Clare Graves "Emergent, Cyclical, Levels of Existence" model. Let's just call it the "Grave's Model" for simplicities sake. This model suggests a form of human evolution that is outside of the ordinary thinking about human physiology and the capacity indicated by physiological evolution. Rather what Dr. Graves was exploring was a theory about how humans evolved culturally ... not just in terms of "what happeded in terms of "cultural history" but more so in terms of "cultural evolutionary capacity." These are very different things.
It will take some number of posts to get it all down so I will not attempt to devalue that process by trying to do it all at once. Instead I'll take just this one point, the difference between what happened as cultural history, and what happened as a result of cultural evolutionary capacity.
"What is cultural evolutionary capacity?
Simply (for now) what I'm going to suggest is the capacity to access a more complete simultaneous utilization and integration of brain functionality. That the various physiological designs present in the human brain are specifically evolved for specific applications. There is an obvious anatomical difference in the various brain structures, e.g.: medulla oblongata vs. cerebellum vs. cerebral cortex vs. corpus collusum ..., and that these are designed to perform different functions. Yet they may not all be processing at the same level of effectiveness, efficiency or priority in any given brain system. However, how specifically they process in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and priority may in fact be the key to what is processed and what the result of that processing is or is not.
What Grave's research suggests to me is that part of human evolution has been to "learn" how to access more of the totality of the brain's structures in greater synchronicity and integration ... and therefore over the various evolutionary epoches to process differently and by so doing learning how to create different results. Yet this is not universally, nor equally spread among the total species population.
While there could be and most likely are a million variable as to why or how this has come to take the specific and unique form it does now on the planet the evidence seems to suggest that we are in the midst of another cultural evolution of titanic proprotions and as a result of this movement we are experiencing the clash of existing positions as the system resorts itself in preparation for this next quantum movement.
This to me is the essence of what I mean when I refer to social ontology ...
The system (i.e.: the entire human species population) as a whole disseminating the potential within the system to the individual members contained within it. In this case preparing the systems and the members within it for a new cultural evolutionary development - which I propose will have no less of an impact on the planet than the argicultural or industrial revolutions of the species did in the past.
This new "revolution" is way, way beyond anything that was suggested by the "technology" or "information" revolutions ... they were just passing phases in the larger "scientific revolution" that itself was and is an adjustment within the "industrial age" we're still living in and contained by today.
Now we're seeing a new "age" being birthed an age of "biology" ... the previous epoches of human history have been based in mechanical paradigms, i.e.: linear, local, temporal, causal. I propose that this new age will be based in a dynamical paradigm that is, non-linear, non-local a-temporal and a-causal. This will reflect the potentiality in the system for not just "evolutionary" change but also "transformational" change.
As a result the species will quickly need to 're-program' its basic skill sets to deal with a dynamical system.
The pre-agricultural age was dynamical as well and the skill set used there to cope with this dynamism in the system was largely "magic" or "magical." However, this will not and does not work in a post-scientific age like the one we are now living in. What we'll need to do instead is update our "sciences" to adjust for and cope with the realities of the total system as a whole, not just the disparate dissected sections around which our sciences have in fact evolved to date.
This is another kind of revolution - that will usher in an "age of biology." Moving the species beyond the boundary conditions established by science as we've known it will take a larger mind-set than the one that spawned science as we now know it to be. This will require a larger social ontology than the one we've been living inside of since the start of the industrial age as well.
I'll pick-up next time on what the Grave's model can do to help illuminate the "jump" that seems to be looming for the species ...
Until then ...
Best regards,
Joseph
PS - Remember to reserve a space in my upcoming teleseminar, "Beyond Hypnosis ...(tm)" at:
Beyond Hypnosis ...(tm)
(I'd have said "Good Morning" but I'm getting started later than usual today with this - I'm presenting a free teleseminar tomorrow at 2:00 PM - EST and I've been busy getting the word out so to speak - if you're interested go to: Beyond Hypnosis ...(tm) you can get all the information there.)
So anyway ... here we are again in (not so) sunny NJ and I'm still contemplating the same things ... essentially how the world works, how people fit into the overall scheme of things ... and like so many others where's my slot?
Yet none of this has the dreadful lugubriosness of most existentialists ... it's not "dreadful" to me that life is unfolding without checking in with me first. For me this is in fact exciting. My questions are really more about: "What going on that I could be paying attention to that I haven't yet ... that will open up more of what unfolding to me?"
So it's about adventure for me (another theme of mine ...).
How to get onto the merry-go-round not off it ... see I think being human is about being in the game not out of it.
Yet this is of course how so many "play" at being human ... they look to see how they can get off or out of the game ... how they can build nice comfortable lives ... how little they can rock the boat. Yet there's no precedent for this behavior in the rest of creation. "Life" is about risk ... taking risk and moving forward. And not moving forward just independently as an individual, but moving forward as a species. It's the whole species that jumps when an individual moves themselves forward ... the risk is often individual, but the boon is shared!
This you can see is an excellent biological strategy ... spread the risk over the population by limiting the impact to a small a sub-population as possible (a single individual if that's possible) and then spread the boon out as far into the population as possible. This is about as well engineered a strategy for evolutionary development as you could design.
Then add in "transformational" potential - i.e.: a "pop" in the system that's not purely evolutionary ... a literal jump over a number of intervals, or across a theme that can't be accounted for linearly. Now you've added a quantum element to the strategy.
An example of this could be language ... a "pop" that occurs when sounds go from expressing emotion or even intent to representing abstractions. This can't be processed linearly ... it's a quantum movement. Yet of course once any quantum movement has occured it's obvious that the potential for that quantum movement was always present in the system.
This is not to say that the system doesn't also have to "evolve" to a prepared state capable of accessing the non-manifest potentiality. There has to be the capacity in the system for the potentiality that pre-exists the extant form to become manifest in that particular system.
This is a critical distinction - that the system has to have evolved the capacity for the potential that pre-exists the extant from to become manifest in that particular system.
We could compare the "evolution" of humans and chimpanzees here by example. We are much more similar than we are different. Yet there seems to be little capacity for chimpanzees to use the abstractions of "society" or "civilization" that we use by default. For instance their inability to desensitize the territorial aggression they display. We too have a default imprint for territorial aggression, and we've displayed it with disasterous results more than once as a species - in fact it's much more quantifiably evident in our history that this is more the norm than not. Yet, we have been able to build societies of such density as to be unimaginable - regardless of resource levels - for any other primates. We do this largely by conscious and societal choice to desensitize our imprint to territorial aggression.
However, I go astray ... I said I was going to discuss Clare Graves "Emergent, Cyclical, Levels of Existence" model. Let's just call it the "Grave's Model" for simplicities sake. This model suggests a form of human evolution that is outside of the ordinary thinking about human physiology and the capacity indicated by physiological evolution. Rather what Dr. Graves was exploring was a theory about how humans evolved culturally ... not just in terms of "what happeded in terms of "cultural history" but more so in terms of "cultural evolutionary capacity." These are very different things.
It will take some number of posts to get it all down so I will not attempt to devalue that process by trying to do it all at once. Instead I'll take just this one point, the difference between what happened as cultural history, and what happened as a result of cultural evolutionary capacity.
"What is cultural evolutionary capacity?
Simply (for now) what I'm going to suggest is the capacity to access a more complete simultaneous utilization and integration of brain functionality. That the various physiological designs present in the human brain are specifically evolved for specific applications. There is an obvious anatomical difference in the various brain structures, e.g.: medulla oblongata vs. cerebellum vs. cerebral cortex vs. corpus collusum ..., and that these are designed to perform different functions. Yet they may not all be processing at the same level of effectiveness, efficiency or priority in any given brain system. However, how specifically they process in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and priority may in fact be the key to what is processed and what the result of that processing is or is not.
What Grave's research suggests to me is that part of human evolution has been to "learn" how to access more of the totality of the brain's structures in greater synchronicity and integration ... and therefore over the various evolutionary epoches to process differently and by so doing learning how to create different results. Yet this is not universally, nor equally spread among the total species population.
While there could be and most likely are a million variable as to why or how this has come to take the specific and unique form it does now on the planet the evidence seems to suggest that we are in the midst of another cultural evolution of titanic proprotions and as a result of this movement we are experiencing the clash of existing positions as the system resorts itself in preparation for this next quantum movement.
This to me is the essence of what I mean when I refer to social ontology ...
The system (i.e.: the entire human species population) as a whole disseminating the potential within the system to the individual members contained within it. In this case preparing the systems and the members within it for a new cultural evolutionary development - which I propose will have no less of an impact on the planet than the argicultural or industrial revolutions of the species did in the past.
This new "revolution" is way, way beyond anything that was suggested by the "technology" or "information" revolutions ... they were just passing phases in the larger "scientific revolution" that itself was and is an adjustment within the "industrial age" we're still living in and contained by today.
Now we're seeing a new "age" being birthed an age of "biology" ... the previous epoches of human history have been based in mechanical paradigms, i.e.: linear, local, temporal, causal. I propose that this new age will be based in a dynamical paradigm that is, non-linear, non-local a-temporal and a-causal. This will reflect the potentiality in the system for not just "evolutionary" change but also "transformational" change.
As a result the species will quickly need to 're-program' its basic skill sets to deal with a dynamical system.
The pre-agricultural age was dynamical as well and the skill set used there to cope with this dynamism in the system was largely "magic" or "magical." However, this will not and does not work in a post-scientific age like the one we are now living in. What we'll need to do instead is update our "sciences" to adjust for and cope with the realities of the total system as a whole, not just the disparate dissected sections around which our sciences have in fact evolved to date.
This is another kind of revolution - that will usher in an "age of biology." Moving the species beyond the boundary conditions established by science as we've known it will take a larger mind-set than the one that spawned science as we now know it to be. This will require a larger social ontology than the one we've been living inside of since the start of the industrial age as well.
I'll pick-up next time on what the Grave's model can do to help illuminate the "jump" that seems to be looming for the species ...
Until then ...
Best regards,
Joseph
PS - Remember to reserve a space in my upcoming teleseminar, "Beyond Hypnosis ...(tm)" at:
Beyond Hypnosis ...(tm)
Thursday, October 6
Following the Path ...
Hello all,
I linked the title of this post to another blogsite "Waiter Rant" that has a particular posting that is enormously connected to what I've been putting out there, and it's also really well written ... I recommend a read ... and while you're there take a look at some of the replies as well ... good stuff.
A friend of mine on another list I operate - MythoSelf(tm) at Yahoo Groups - posted this link there and I read it this morning myself. I was touched and especially so by some of the replies. What touched me was the same as what touched many who are obviously reading this (based on the replies) and that was the "humanness" of this story. Yet what was also present and obvious to me is how it's contextualized, how it's associated with the larger form this writer also holds.
This is the essence of what I've been pointing at regarding "social ontology" as an application. The ability to contextualize our lives. I could say it, "Our lives are contained in the context." Now this of course would go against so many, many things.
It would seem to refute the entire Western myth of individualism, and yet I don't think it does at all. It might seem a blasphemy in that it suggests that the "context" not G-d holds our lives in his hands. It could seem offensive to a practicing Buddhist or Hindu in that the "context" I seem to be pointing to is externalized and not about connecting to the G-d(s) within. Yet I don't actually think any of this is true if you'll go out far enough from the source. That the context is infinite ... and we experience only a small part of it in an intimate and unfolded way.
Yet the "small part" of the infinitie that we personally experience is a microcosom of the totality.
Our "little world" is actually a reflection of the whole thing, the entire cosmos, and as we interact with it we are in fact interacting with the totality. The ripples we make locally have no boundaries. This is almost an overwhelming thought ... that everything you do is felt everywhere by everyone. What's overwhelming is to retain any sense of the privilege of personal comfort when you get this.
I have a conversation with one of my long time students on Tuesday ... we've been engaged in a little social ontology experiment of our own. At one point in that conversation he said ... "This becomes overwhelming when you think of it in this way." referring to exactly the point I've made above. In essence how do we as Americans (he and I) assume the right to drive cars as we do, using the resources that we do in so doing? Does this mean we should all be buying hybrid vehicles? Does it mean I have to change my whole life and find the "right" rules to abide by?
I get these questions, even this concern ... and the answer is both "Yes!" and "No!" equally ... as there is both a "right" way and simultaneously "no wrong way" to do such things. This is the magic ... this is the place of the quantum leap ... beyond paradox. This is not the "genius" of simultaneously holding two thoughts at one time, this is the simultaneity of resolving the conflict between all thoughts ... so that there is no conflict ... the paradox dissolves. This is G-d's view.
There is in any given moment an opportunity to act ... to respond if you prefer. The Universe just keeps unfolding ... endlessly ... and that's enough for most folks to overload them and ... yes even overwhelm them. A billion, billion events happening ... all right now. And, unfortunately we're privy to more of them than we've ever been before ... as they are happening. The "war" doesn't happen "over there" ... it happens in our living rooms and now. We know ... and we do basically nothing. Yet we feel like we should ...
... we want to respond ... to engage ... to do our part ...
but there's nothing we can do ... and there's nothing to do ... about that. Our nervous systems aren't really up to all this input ... we are designed as a "local" species ... and we've gone global. We become globally aware. We've developed a sense of responsibility for the entirety of the planet ... all it's people ... maybe even all it's inhabitants ... and there's essentially nothing we can do ... on that scale. Yet it keeps showing up ... even if we don't watch the "news" we hear about it from others. The social world keeps flooding in ... and it's not about the neighbors. It's not the story you hear about "what happened over there" it's the story you hear about,
What's happening over there ...RIGHT NOW!
And, there's absolutely nothing you can do. You'll be "operated" by others to send money to help the 'victims' but little of what you send will make it to those you see on television or read about in the newspapers ... and there will be thousands more who you'll never hear about and who will never get your 'gifts' regardless of how heartfelt or genuine they are. And, nonetheless these gifts do help.
However, you'll pass the hungry, homeless vagrant on the street and feel better about it when you do ... because you'll know you're a fundamentally good person 'who has helped' - in the least painful possible way for you of course - but you have "helped." This is all part of the manipulation, part of the coercion. To reach into your need to connect, to be altruistic, to acknowledge your "tribal" ties which have now become "global" ... and yet that's still not enough.
The only hope may be "getting" the idea of "context" the endless, infinite, intertwined web ... what if instead of contributing to the next tsumami fund, or the next hurricane money raising drive ... you simply fed three folks in your own town. What if everyone did just that ... made sure their own towns were all together ... and maybe the one just next to them? Then what if you got that there aren't really any towns ... that that's all made up? Go and find the "lines on the ground" that prove your where you are ... in the town you're in, in the county, state, country .. it's all made up ... this is what the astronauts get when they see the earth from orbit ... that it's all made up!!! All everyone would ever have to do is take care of their own, and "get" that there's no one who isn't included. This would appeal to our deepest "tribal" instincts. Then this ripple would begin to cascade and become a tsunami itself ... overwhelming the sense of helplessness that engulfs the average individual.
This is not about getting you to do your part ... it's instead a wake up call to just get that you have no other choice.
You are part of the "context" ... there's no way out.
So next time you read about ... that other guy or gal ... remember for whom the bell tolls ...
Until tomorrow and we'll talk some Graves ...
Best regards from NJ - The Garden State,
Joseph
I linked the title of this post to another blogsite "Waiter Rant" that has a particular posting that is enormously connected to what I've been putting out there, and it's also really well written ... I recommend a read ... and while you're there take a look at some of the replies as well ... good stuff.
A friend of mine on another list I operate - MythoSelf(tm) at Yahoo Groups - posted this link there and I read it this morning myself. I was touched and especially so by some of the replies. What touched me was the same as what touched many who are obviously reading this (based on the replies) and that was the "humanness" of this story. Yet what was also present and obvious to me is how it's contextualized, how it's associated with the larger form this writer also holds.
This is the essence of what I've been pointing at regarding "social ontology" as an application. The ability to contextualize our lives. I could say it, "Our lives are contained in the context." Now this of course would go against so many, many things.
It would seem to refute the entire Western myth of individualism, and yet I don't think it does at all. It might seem a blasphemy in that it suggests that the "context" not G-d holds our lives in his hands. It could seem offensive to a practicing Buddhist or Hindu in that the "context" I seem to be pointing to is externalized and not about connecting to the G-d(s) within. Yet I don't actually think any of this is true if you'll go out far enough from the source. That the context is infinite ... and we experience only a small part of it in an intimate and unfolded way.
Yet the "small part" of the infinitie that we personally experience is a microcosom of the totality.
Our "little world" is actually a reflection of the whole thing, the entire cosmos, and as we interact with it we are in fact interacting with the totality. The ripples we make locally have no boundaries. This is almost an overwhelming thought ... that everything you do is felt everywhere by everyone. What's overwhelming is to retain any sense of the privilege of personal comfort when you get this.
I have a conversation with one of my long time students on Tuesday ... we've been engaged in a little social ontology experiment of our own. At one point in that conversation he said ... "This becomes overwhelming when you think of it in this way." referring to exactly the point I've made above. In essence how do we as Americans (he and I) assume the right to drive cars as we do, using the resources that we do in so doing? Does this mean we should all be buying hybrid vehicles? Does it mean I have to change my whole life and find the "right" rules to abide by?
I get these questions, even this concern ... and the answer is both "Yes!" and "No!" equally ... as there is both a "right" way and simultaneously "no wrong way" to do such things. This is the magic ... this is the place of the quantum leap ... beyond paradox. This is not the "genius" of simultaneously holding two thoughts at one time, this is the simultaneity of resolving the conflict between all thoughts ... so that there is no conflict ... the paradox dissolves. This is G-d's view.
There is in any given moment an opportunity to act ... to respond if you prefer. The Universe just keeps unfolding ... endlessly ... and that's enough for most folks to overload them and ... yes even overwhelm them. A billion, billion events happening ... all right now. And, unfortunately we're privy to more of them than we've ever been before ... as they are happening. The "war" doesn't happen "over there" ... it happens in our living rooms and now. We know ... and we do basically nothing. Yet we feel like we should ...
... we want to respond ... to engage ... to do our part ...
but there's nothing we can do ... and there's nothing to do ... about that. Our nervous systems aren't really up to all this input ... we are designed as a "local" species ... and we've gone global. We become globally aware. We've developed a sense of responsibility for the entirety of the planet ... all it's people ... maybe even all it's inhabitants ... and there's essentially nothing we can do ... on that scale. Yet it keeps showing up ... even if we don't watch the "news" we hear about it from others. The social world keeps flooding in ... and it's not about the neighbors. It's not the story you hear about "what happened over there" it's the story you hear about,
What's happening over there ...RIGHT NOW!
And, there's absolutely nothing you can do. You'll be "operated" by others to send money to help the 'victims' but little of what you send will make it to those you see on television or read about in the newspapers ... and there will be thousands more who you'll never hear about and who will never get your 'gifts' regardless of how heartfelt or genuine they are. And, nonetheless these gifts do help.
However, you'll pass the hungry, homeless vagrant on the street and feel better about it when you do ... because you'll know you're a fundamentally good person 'who has helped' - in the least painful possible way for you of course - but you have "helped." This is all part of the manipulation, part of the coercion. To reach into your need to connect, to be altruistic, to acknowledge your "tribal" ties which have now become "global" ... and yet that's still not enough.
The only hope may be "getting" the idea of "context" the endless, infinite, intertwined web ... what if instead of contributing to the next tsumami fund, or the next hurricane money raising drive ... you simply fed three folks in your own town. What if everyone did just that ... made sure their own towns were all together ... and maybe the one just next to them? Then what if you got that there aren't really any towns ... that that's all made up? Go and find the "lines on the ground" that prove your where you are ... in the town you're in, in the county, state, country .. it's all made up ... this is what the astronauts get when they see the earth from orbit ... that it's all made up!!! All everyone would ever have to do is take care of their own, and "get" that there's no one who isn't included. This would appeal to our deepest "tribal" instincts. Then this ripple would begin to cascade and become a tsunami itself ... overwhelming the sense of helplessness that engulfs the average individual.
This is not about getting you to do your part ... it's instead a wake up call to just get that you have no other choice.
You are part of the "context" ... there's no way out.
So next time you read about ... that other guy or gal ... remember for whom the bell tolls ...
Until tomorrow and we'll talk some Graves ...
Best regards from NJ - The Garden State,
Joseph
Wednesday, October 5
New Directions ...
Hello again all,
It's been an interesting few weeks, I promised to come back this week ... and even that got bumped ... kinda like things that go bump in the night. It's really been like that a bit ... things coming out of nowhere that have been really impacting me and my thinking.
What's most interesting is how subtle it's been. We're not talking about major life changing revelations that rocked me with their intensity, but really more like the subtle shifting of a house coming to rest on new soil so that over time it's no longer in the original position that it was built in. This realization is more startling than the process. The process is so slow from the inside that it's almost imperceptible. Yet I imagiine on the outside it's more like watching my daughter grow. When I'm around town I don't see it. Then I go away for a week or two to deliver trainings or work with clients and I come home and it's obvious how much she's grown.
The fundamental trail I've been going down and sharing with you is one of social ontology. The idea that we co-create reality together. That your perception of reality is formed in relation to what you know based upon input from and later with others. Than this reality is shaped further as you roll it around inside, having your subjective perceptions about your inter-subjective experiences, and you put it out again in interaction with others.
This is where I kind of left off to go inside myself. However, what I found of course in keeping with what I've been saying (maybe mostly to myself) is that you can never really be alone, even on the inside. The startling experience was when I realized that the more "alone" I became - i.e.: the quieter I've learned to be the more the experience of being with and in relation to other becomes prominent. It's literally as though the more quiet I become the more room there is to experience other.
Now I know this might seem obvious now that I've said it. That "OF COURSE!" when you get quiet inside there's more room to notice what's going on with others. And that's part of it, that's true as far as I can tell from my perceptions of it all. However, I'm also saying that when I get quieter on the inside that there's more experience of other and being in relation to other even when I am physically still alone. I am somehow MORE CONNECTED to the rest of the planet, and especially so others of my kind, when I'm most quiet inside.
Now by quiet what I mean is "settled" ... at peace, still and clear. The experience is like the "quieting" I'd refer to if I were watching an infant fall asleep in it's mother's or father's arms and then lie still sleeping. In this particular state I suggest there is a reconnect with where it's already been ... where it's come from. I could say that like this the child is remembering G-d.
And in my own quiet I'm coming to know this sense of things, and it seems to expand, not contract. That is it is an experience of going beyond the boundaries of myself and sensing the world as a totality. I too experience G-d like this and it's not just an external entity ... I am a part of this totality ... as much a part as the whole. This is a massive resolution of the experience for me. Not something new by the way, just newly articulated.
So I go back ... what is the "social ontology" I have been referencing. It is the training ground for this experience of totality. It is what is beyond separation, beyond the fall from grace ... to a renewed grace. To the direct sensing of other at all times and operating in relation to the whole-form movement, Bohm's "holomovement" if you will, in each act. Instead of simply building a respondability in relation to a deep sensing of other, building an ability to call into being what is not yet fully formed in an extant, manifest way. What resides as only potential in a parallel dimension where all possibility resides.
What I propose it is possible to awaken to and towards is an intentionality that draws into being from the vastness of all possibility that which best serves the system as a whole but overriding the individuality of personal (i.e.: subjective) experience and acting only in regard to the larger form. This kind of intentionality is massive ... much larger than desire or wanting ... it is a calling into being a way of being for the whole of humankind ... and in turn that which we reside within, including the unfolding of the planet as it too moves through the cosmos.
The "old" stories and myths had the instruction set for those peoples regarding how specifically to do this ... Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime," Native American "Rain Dance" European Pagan "Wyrd Rites" Nordic "Runes" African "Witch Doctors" ... these are but examples. And they all reside in a Graves "Two" worldview - a socio-bio-cultural model of the world steeped in magic and mystery. The only ties were blood and place ... tribal. This view is still sought by some ... reckon the new Discovery Channel program, "Going Tribal" by example. Or those "practicing" these old ways on the side of their "modern" lives. Yet this is not the world we live in today ... these are in fact old instruction sets ... and while they may work and even work well they do not allow for the evolution that has already occured elsewhere.
The dominant myth has become "Science" and we'll address that one at some time ... I've actually addressed it in part before. Now however is not the time for that posting.
Yet what I propose is a "new" mythology, a set of instructions, stories and myths that are beyond either "magic and mystery" or "science." The "new" mythology is much more systemic and synthetic than that of science ... it draws down the whole-form of the system without dissection and separation. It in essence revitalizes G-d, but not the monotheistic G-d "out there" waiting for us to do good or evil. Rather this is the G-d that permeats all things, that is all things, that is you and I. This is the G-d of consciousness that imbues the world with life.
By now I recognize I may be fully "out there" for many or maybe even all of you. That this is now no longer "social ontology" in any way, shape or form to which you can relate. Yet I propose it's not so far away as you may think. That you actually do know and recognize to what I point. That you have had those moments where you called into being an experience that hadn't happened yet from this kind of massive intentionality ... and you knew in that moment at least that you were tapped into something larger, much larger, than yourself. This experience is what I am referring to as "meeting and being with G-d." It is the direct realization of the G-d within becoming present and therefore becoming present to the G-d with-out as well. To residing at the center of the system. This is the next evolution beyond magic and science ... to realization and a massive communal intentionality ... one I propose that is expressing itself on the planet even as you read these words. One that will leave no prisoners in its wake ... it will be a force of overwhelming propotions when it comes of age ... and I am urgently suggesting that you consider looking around at who is coming of age and noticing what they are noticing for and how.
Those who are compelled by the old models ... magic, hoping to "control" their personal worlds by limiting how the world "out there" will effect them, or science, hoping to get to the source code by breaking it down and shifting through it's parts (take the massive effort of the "human genome" project - let's see where that one leads us) to control the world "out there" ... will become extinct. What I'm proposing is that only those who are prepared to let go of the model of separation that is at the core of these older forms ... the individual forms of existence that have been at the core of humankind since it's emergence ... will survive and prosper in a new world coming to pass.
This is not a psuedo-magical world, but a world of massive interconnection and the realization of inter-dependency. This is way, way beyond recycling and sustainability ... those are Graves five and six solutions ... and it's way too late for those now. We're talking about a quantum shift outside of the existing paradigms ... all of them to a a Graves seven and eight postion for the planet. I'll come back to what I think this means soon ...
Yet what I will close with for now is the offer to substantiate some of my claims made above. To demonstrate evidentially, NOT SCIENTIFICALLY, BUT EVIDENTIALLY ... that there is a movemment afoot to a global realization of the evolution of the species to a new level of being. A consciousness that is becoming more and more intertwined is gripping the planet ... and we as a species are becoming more and more open to it. This is not a new or original proposition, rather what is new is the means of access to the propositions that have already been made and already well presented by others. And, if these proposistions are correct than those who can and do make this leap will be the best prepared to usher in this new consciousness for the species and the planet ... I welcome you aboard for the insight and the journey.
Best regards from somewhere in deepest, darkest NJ,
Joseph
It's been an interesting few weeks, I promised to come back this week ... and even that got bumped ... kinda like things that go bump in the night. It's really been like that a bit ... things coming out of nowhere that have been really impacting me and my thinking.
What's most interesting is how subtle it's been. We're not talking about major life changing revelations that rocked me with their intensity, but really more like the subtle shifting of a house coming to rest on new soil so that over time it's no longer in the original position that it was built in. This realization is more startling than the process. The process is so slow from the inside that it's almost imperceptible. Yet I imagiine on the outside it's more like watching my daughter grow. When I'm around town I don't see it. Then I go away for a week or two to deliver trainings or work with clients and I come home and it's obvious how much she's grown.
The fundamental trail I've been going down and sharing with you is one of social ontology. The idea that we co-create reality together. That your perception of reality is formed in relation to what you know based upon input from and later with others. Than this reality is shaped further as you roll it around inside, having your subjective perceptions about your inter-subjective experiences, and you put it out again in interaction with others.
This is where I kind of left off to go inside myself. However, what I found of course in keeping with what I've been saying (maybe mostly to myself) is that you can never really be alone, even on the inside. The startling experience was when I realized that the more "alone" I became - i.e.: the quieter I've learned to be the more the experience of being with and in relation to other becomes prominent. It's literally as though the more quiet I become the more room there is to experience other.
Now I know this might seem obvious now that I've said it. That "OF COURSE!" when you get quiet inside there's more room to notice what's going on with others. And that's part of it, that's true as far as I can tell from my perceptions of it all. However, I'm also saying that when I get quieter on the inside that there's more experience of other and being in relation to other even when I am physically still alone. I am somehow MORE CONNECTED to the rest of the planet, and especially so others of my kind, when I'm most quiet inside.
Now by quiet what I mean is "settled" ... at peace, still and clear. The experience is like the "quieting" I'd refer to if I were watching an infant fall asleep in it's mother's or father's arms and then lie still sleeping. In this particular state I suggest there is a reconnect with where it's already been ... where it's come from. I could say that like this the child is remembering G-d.
And in my own quiet I'm coming to know this sense of things, and it seems to expand, not contract. That is it is an experience of going beyond the boundaries of myself and sensing the world as a totality. I too experience G-d like this and it's not just an external entity ... I am a part of this totality ... as much a part as the whole. This is a massive resolution of the experience for me. Not something new by the way, just newly articulated.
So I go back ... what is the "social ontology" I have been referencing. It is the training ground for this experience of totality. It is what is beyond separation, beyond the fall from grace ... to a renewed grace. To the direct sensing of other at all times and operating in relation to the whole-form movement, Bohm's "holomovement" if you will, in each act. Instead of simply building a respondability in relation to a deep sensing of other, building an ability to call into being what is not yet fully formed in an extant, manifest way. What resides as only potential in a parallel dimension where all possibility resides.
What I propose it is possible to awaken to and towards is an intentionality that draws into being from the vastness of all possibility that which best serves the system as a whole but overriding the individuality of personal (i.e.: subjective) experience and acting only in regard to the larger form. This kind of intentionality is massive ... much larger than desire or wanting ... it is a calling into being a way of being for the whole of humankind ... and in turn that which we reside within, including the unfolding of the planet as it too moves through the cosmos.
The "old" stories and myths had the instruction set for those peoples regarding how specifically to do this ... Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime," Native American "Rain Dance" European Pagan "Wyrd Rites" Nordic "Runes" African "Witch Doctors" ... these are but examples. And they all reside in a Graves "Two" worldview - a socio-bio-cultural model of the world steeped in magic and mystery. The only ties were blood and place ... tribal. This view is still sought by some ... reckon the new Discovery Channel program, "Going Tribal" by example. Or those "practicing" these old ways on the side of their "modern" lives. Yet this is not the world we live in today ... these are in fact old instruction sets ... and while they may work and even work well they do not allow for the evolution that has already occured elsewhere.
The dominant myth has become "Science" and we'll address that one at some time ... I've actually addressed it in part before. Now however is not the time for that posting.
Yet what I propose is a "new" mythology, a set of instructions, stories and myths that are beyond either "magic and mystery" or "science." The "new" mythology is much more systemic and synthetic than that of science ... it draws down the whole-form of the system without dissection and separation. It in essence revitalizes G-d, but not the monotheistic G-d "out there" waiting for us to do good or evil. Rather this is the G-d that permeats all things, that is all things, that is you and I. This is the G-d of consciousness that imbues the world with life.
By now I recognize I may be fully "out there" for many or maybe even all of you. That this is now no longer "social ontology" in any way, shape or form to which you can relate. Yet I propose it's not so far away as you may think. That you actually do know and recognize to what I point. That you have had those moments where you called into being an experience that hadn't happened yet from this kind of massive intentionality ... and you knew in that moment at least that you were tapped into something larger, much larger, than yourself. This experience is what I am referring to as "meeting and being with G-d." It is the direct realization of the G-d within becoming present and therefore becoming present to the G-d with-out as well. To residing at the center of the system. This is the next evolution beyond magic and science ... to realization and a massive communal intentionality ... one I propose that is expressing itself on the planet even as you read these words. One that will leave no prisoners in its wake ... it will be a force of overwhelming propotions when it comes of age ... and I am urgently suggesting that you consider looking around at who is coming of age and noticing what they are noticing for and how.
Those who are compelled by the old models ... magic, hoping to "control" their personal worlds by limiting how the world "out there" will effect them, or science, hoping to get to the source code by breaking it down and shifting through it's parts (take the massive effort of the "human genome" project - let's see where that one leads us) to control the world "out there" ... will become extinct. What I'm proposing is that only those who are prepared to let go of the model of separation that is at the core of these older forms ... the individual forms of existence that have been at the core of humankind since it's emergence ... will survive and prosper in a new world coming to pass.
This is not a psuedo-magical world, but a world of massive interconnection and the realization of inter-dependency. This is way, way beyond recycling and sustainability ... those are Graves five and six solutions ... and it's way too late for those now. We're talking about a quantum shift outside of the existing paradigms ... all of them to a a Graves seven and eight postion for the planet. I'll come back to what I think this means soon ...
Yet what I will close with for now is the offer to substantiate some of my claims made above. To demonstrate evidentially, NOT SCIENTIFICALLY, BUT EVIDENTIALLY ... that there is a movemment afoot to a global realization of the evolution of the species to a new level of being. A consciousness that is becoming more and more intertwined is gripping the planet ... and we as a species are becoming more and more open to it. This is not a new or original proposition, rather what is new is the means of access to the propositions that have already been made and already well presented by others. And, if these proposistions are correct than those who can and do make this leap will be the best prepared to usher in this new consciousness for the species and the planet ... I welcome you aboard for the insight and the journey.
Best regards from somewhere in deepest, darkest NJ,
Joseph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)