Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Integral relationships

Last post 05-10-2007, 6:03 PM by ambosuno. 684 replies.
Page 2 of 46 (685 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  09-19-2006, 8:04 AM 8394 in reply to 8378

    Re: Integral relationships

    Davidd:

    I guess that the integral view - which is the 'view from 50,000 feet' - helps because we can see that we can't just parachute in to such intersubjective depths, as those billion love songs might imply...  We have to travel there.  And the journey begins with trying to understand other people.

    Smile [:)] 



    Well said, David. As you can all see, Arthur and I are still figuring this all out! I can only tell you so far that it's very different going into a relationship with the knowledge I have now vs. what I knew 17 years ago.

    As you say, David, we've been told the journey is over when in fact it's only beginning.

    Liz

    Upgrade to ISC!
    http://www.integralinstitute.org/public/static/multispirit.aspx
    http://pods.zaadz.com/ii
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 8:24 AM 8398 in reply to 8382

    Re: Integral relationships

    Lovely post, IAMisHome:

    IAMisHome:

    David, all those love songs are a UR expression of, at the same time, an UL personal experience and of a LL cultural vision of expected love (or Ideal).  Expressed in the right side push on the transformation of love, or the culture of love.  Commune of ‘60s, open marriage, multiple love are different tries to achieve the same result, the depth of love. 

    Reflecting how, as Arthur says, its all so damn complicated... That's why I started this thread, to try to bring some 50,000 feet perspective.  As is so thoroughly done with UL spirituality....

    Love is just too important to us to leave to songs.... As Marianthi so beautifully says, its 'the great sweet discovery that keeps on unfolding....' Smile [:)]

    I guess what I'm wanting to push here is that love is also too important to leave to chance, or to passively wait for.   We don't sit around hoping that we might get enlightened, do we, or wait in case higher consciousness stops by?   Why shouldn't the same apply to LL, to intersubjectivity? 

    I'm arguing that love is a practice.  Yes, its a sweet unfolding, but it won't unfold by itself.  For example, we have to actually meet the right someone - as IAMisHome points out, it begins with UR encounter.   David Deida takes up the story....

    Love is something you do, not something you fall into or out of. Love is something that you practice, like playing tennis or the violin, not something you happen to feel or not. If you are waiting to feel love, in passionate sex or safe conversation, you are making a mistake. Love is an action that you do--and when you do it, you feel it. When you are loving, others find you lovable. Love is an action you can practice.

    Liz, I'd be interested to hear your response to Arthur's questions, if you're in the mood?  Is being 'in love' different to 'loving' because it involves that surrender and trusting of oneself which Marianthi speaks of?  Whereas, one can love someone deeply without giving oneself in intersubjectivity?

    ~ David


    'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
    ~ Dr Hannibal Lecter
    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 8:44 AM 8402 in reply to 8398

    Re: Integral relationships

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 8:49 AM 8403 in reply to 8398

    Re: Integral relationships

    If I'm in the mood, David, lol?

    I'm in agreement with Deida (mark your calendars, folks) that love is a verb.

    Let me think about this some more and get back to you, David.

    Liz

    Upgrade to ISC!
    http://www.integralinstitute.org/public/static/multispirit.aspx
    http://pods.zaadz.com/ii
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 9:21 AM 8408 in reply to 8403

    Re: Integral relationships

    ok, helen here now ... ever had a dream vivo-like experience, where lovie-dovie just shows up at the front door ... "i didn't know when or how you would get here!" ...melting in each other's arms .. then  he n' she snuggle in-bliss under the covers.

    years later......oh never mind.....practice, practice, practice...imagination in-action can 'take' one far far away ... to a field of all possibilities...where the champagne is served hot, hot, hot Left Hug [{]Right Hug [}]

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 10:06 AM 8419 in reply to 8172

    Re: Integral relationships

    Davidd, your opening post was brilliant, thank you. I agree with so much of what you wrote there. (A relationship is ongoing intersubjectivity. Intimacy is intersubjective depth. A core practice in LL is to empathize, and part of reaching intersubjective depth.)

    So far so good. We now have a common language to discuss relationsships in a general sense. But I too am confused - as Arthur/Adastra was... How do we differentiate between love, in love, attraction, relationships between friends (OK, don't throw every known joke about sex my way...).

    I believe current language use is more than confusing in this area. Can there even be unrequited love, or is that only unrequited attraction? What's the difference between attraction, 'being in love', loving somebody, having a love relationship? Is love a feeling or intrinsically something that only appears with intersubjective depth?


    http://pelle.zaadz.com/
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 1:15 PM 8440 in reply to 8172

    Re: Integral relationships

    Yes, Davidd

    Your explanation of intersubjective depth=intimacy in LL being analoguous to higher states in UL not only seems thoughtfully well put, but  also describing something that seems intuitivley resonant/right with me.

    Even better, you describe a practice for those who wish to gain this depth.  The process of the practice comprising both intellectual and emotional components itself has depth!  That's beautiful. 

    I, too,  having had many physical and emotional encounters prior to developing the capacity for intimacy.

    I guess it is amazing finding others to relate with that are also developing this capacity of intersubjectivity--

    so that  expriences and interactions are less one sided and the relative depth is reflected between the parties.  Let's appreciate it more  Rather, I'm going to consciously appreciate it more.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 3:12 PM 8458 in reply to 8419

    Re: Integral relationships

    Pelle, Kelcrowe and all

    Hey, it feels like we're onto something here...

    Helene mentioned polyamory, but I think that IAMisHome has it right:  that's an example of Lower Right quadrant manifestation - its a social aspect of relationship.  Every relationship has a social aspect, but it will depend on context - traditionally in the west people expect to only have one partner at a time, but that's a context-dependent variable.  In principle, there's no reason why someone can't be in love with more than one person at a time, is there?  Making that work is a whole different matter, and we've explored polyamory at length on previous forums, but it doesn't affect the LL process which we're trying to focus on right now... Gender, number (species?!) etc of partners is primarily a LR issue involving UR too...

    pelleB:

     Can there even be unrequited love, or is that only unrequited attraction? What's the difference between attraction, 'being in love', loving somebody, having a love relationship? Is love a feeling or intrinsically something that only appears with intersubjective depth?

    Anyone want to help out here?  Some of this is semantic and some of it is substantive.  Could I suggest that it partly comes down to what I brought up earlier, about meeting the 'right person'?  What makes a person 'right' for us when another person isn't?  As Marianthi indicated, mutual empathy is great, but it isn't the same as 'being in love'.  Its friendship. We can only be 'in love' with a 'special' person, with whom mutual empathy is a 'necessary but not sufficient' precondition for love... And that special person has to find us special too...  No wonder this 'miraculous intersubjective intimacy' only comes around a few times (at most) in our lives...  Anyone want to have a shot at clarifying what 'specialness' might mean?  Because special for me may well not be special for you.  So, it must be individual.  It must reflect affinities between the partners.  But not just affinities:  unless we're narcissists, we don't want to hang out with a clone of ourselves!  We also want polarities, those differences which complement our own personalities, and spark us like the poles of a battery!  Yes?  That special someone can excite us, surprise us, make us feel more alive, electrify us!  They walk in the room and the room lights up...  Our ordinary lives become passionate...  Yes - consciousness is raised up, intimacy takes us to wild new places inside - and we go there together...

    Generate any sparks?   Smile [:)]


    'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
    ~ Dr Hannibal Lecter
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 4:21 PM 8463 in reply to 8458

    Re: Integral relationships

    yah, this love thing can be chatted about till cows come..."i looove your dress!" -  for instance, is a good'one..."i love my religion, back off jack!"......

    isn't mature , partner relationship  the kind which says "i love you, that's why i need you"  -?

     

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  09-19-2006, 4:32 PM 8468 in reply to 8463

    Re: Integral relationships

    Sorry if I don't integrate Smile [:)] your last posts.  It takes me time to write an answer and, to not lost my post (as it arrived many times) I prefer write it outside.

     

    This morning I listened a song to the radio.  “Listen to this intellectuals.  Did they already say I love you? “ (my translation)

     

    It appears to be appropriate here.  J   I read at some thread yesterday to have words to explain it make easier the appropriateness of the emotion, concept or whatever.  You don’t just feel it but you also can explain it. Having a cultural base, a validation in fact, the process can be generally use.  It’s the movement of the spiral. So thank you to Deida (and so many others) to give us words on our feelings. And our deep aspiration.  Even if we are not conscious to have it.  It contributes to facilitate a passage (change). So, to answer to the singer.  To give words to the world, Deida necessarly loves. 

     

    But.

     

    Davidd:

    I guess that the integral view - which is the 'view from 50,000 feet' - helps because we can see that we can't just parachute in to such intersubjective depths, as those billion love songs might imply... 

    What is the original state, or higher state, if it’s not LOVE? So, we only have to parachute into the original intersubjective depth. Is it easy this absolute confidence? It is to each one to answer.  But until the day to day encounter, love is relatively easy. You know the compassion for the earth’s inhabitants, for the poorest, the love for a friend you never see.  Honestly, I find really much difficult to be a poor mother of 5 children working hard to give them the essential, loving them and finding again love for people around her.  It’s why I love the idea of Stuart to seek ordinary loving people on the road in the USA.  

    But the love songs refers to a love relationship as lovers. And we also need those words (music) to enhance the emotion of love. If looking at 50 000 feet refers to the mind of love.  The music is a contribution at the spirit of love.  It refers precisely at that is not reason.  It’s easier to love at 50 000 feet than 10. The view is clearer, the self of each one is protected (autonomy) but the life is often at 10.  But the expression of love is in the body. By a hug, a kiss, a smile. No matter it is at work, with friends, with children … or with lovers.  The integral relationship is in the 3-body.

    David: We have to travel there.  And the journey begins with trying to understand other people.

    So, you are at 50000 feet and you try to understand eachother.  Understand eachother, accept eachother it is in the same time accept the specificity of each person on earth.  You don’t do it only for “us” but for “all of us”.  It is the same spirit.  Like you love your partner, you love the entire world.

    Liz Arthur and I are still figuring this all out!

     

    How could it be otherly Liz and Arthur?  Each moment is a new.  So, we live it as a new. 

     

    Do you remember the movie The man on the moon with Jim Carrey on Andy Kaufman.  As non USAer, I didn’t know this artist so special with great qualities but all the same difficult to understand.  Love looks like this.  You never know what it will be on the new day. 

     

    To live in that way isn’t easy all the time.  And it’s the same no matter what is the definition of the relationship but with a particular accent when it is in a love relationship. What is the alternative? I wonder many times about that. 

    David:  I guess what I'm wanting to push here is that love is also too important to leave to chance, or to passively wait for.   We don't sit around hoping that we might get enlightened, do we, or wait in case higher consciousness stops by?   Why shouldn't the same apply to LL, to intersubjectivity? 

    I imagine it’s something like that I said many years ago even it wasn’t expressed like it J  That I finally understood with time, nothing was wrong with me, or doesn’t working. It is simply I didn’t encounter men with same values.  Readings gave me a deep release about that.  And yes, I agree, the same kind of engagement applies to LL than UL.  But, I have a question, if in the UL we find many ways to support the person with directions and advices, we should find the same in the intersubjectivity of LL? How do you see the intersubjectivity in a love relationship concerning this aspect?  What does Deida say about that?  But, in the first place, what the partners do for eachother? Is it to be at 50 000 feet???

     

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-20-2006, 5:26 AM 8521 in reply to 8458

    Re: Integral relationships

    My thinking at the moment is that ongoing intersubjectivity, practising empathy and even intersubjective depth (intimacy) can still be equivalent to 'just' friendship. We need something more to find a person special. Sparks and attraction (mostly UR)? Certainly. But there's still more. My guess at the moment: the subtle bodies of two persons need to harmonize, which potentially brings a feeling of deep safety and healing, while the gross body personalities do well to have some polar opposites that surprise us, electrify us and also challenge us to grow. What do you all think?


    http://pelle.zaadz.com/
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  09-20-2006, 7:04 AM 8522 in reply to 8521

    Re: Integral relationships

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-20-2006, 7:50 AM 8530 in reply to 8521

    Re: Integral relationships

    pelleB:

    My thinking at the moment is that ongoing intersubjectivity, practising empathy and even intersubjective depth (intimacy) can still be equivalent to 'just' friendship. We need something more to find a person special. Sparks and attraction (mostly UR)? Certainly. But there's still more. My guess at the moment: the subtle bodies of two persons need to harmonize, which potentially brings a feeling of deep safety and healing, while the gross body personalities do well two have some polar opposites that surprise us, electrify us and also challenge us to grow. What do you all think?

    I think you're right, Pelle.  I think that an AQAL approach to relationships could start, as I tried here, with Quadrants.   LL, accessed via UR and LR, using the cognitive line as a way in via empathy (yes, it all sounds dry and academic, doesn't it...too bad, Ken is my model here! Smile [:)])...  But that only takes you so far.  As you say, Pelle, then you need to look at Levels.   All Quadrants All Levels.  And co-creation. What's the difference between a loving and intimate friendship or familial relationship, and an intimate love relationship?  (Leaving aside the hot sex.  Unfortunately...) They're all in the Lower Left, in Zone 2, but there's a qualitative difference, as you suggest.  So it must be about Levels of consciousness.  Helen invokes tantra, and I agree that this is relevant, and Marianthi touched on this too....  Need to mull this over.

    Smile [:)]


    'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
    ~ Dr Hannibal Lecter
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  09-20-2006, 8:17 AM 8534 in reply to 8530

    Re: Integral relationships

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  09-20-2006, 9:23 AM 8546 in reply to 8530

    Re: Integral relationships

    You all know how the right teacher at the right time makes you fall in love, right? It's easy to get a crush on a teacher who really turns your brain on.

    I think a lover is a similar thing. They have something you really need in order to grow spiritually, and it entirely possible that it's your subtle body that does the tuning in to that-to see if the spark is there. Beats sitting on a mountaintop for 20 years!

    I don't remember who, but someone said that if you were a perfectly enlightened being, you wouldn't need any romantic relationship, because you'd be finished with that stuff-you'd love perfectly already.

    So maybe that's what intimate relationship is-learning how to feel that divine love, one hot guy at a time!

    Ok, I'm pretty silly this morning, but you get the idea.

    Liz


    Upgrade to ISC!
    http://www.integralinstitute.org/public/static/multispirit.aspx
    http://pods.zaadz.com/ii
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
Page 2 of 46 (685 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help