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

Dead Forever?

Last post 10-13-2007, 10:04 AM by tamgoddess. 279 replies.
Page 5 of 19 (280 items)   « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  05-30-2007, 9:32 PM 23596 in reply to 23580

    Re: Dead Forever?

    Hi, Tim, David, Balder, Pattye and all.

    I think that this has been a pretty balanced questioning about staying on topic. Each of you made good points in support of topic drift, true human creativity and variability, not wanting to jump on a personal exchange that isn't disruptive, and not wanting to manifest the rigid aspects of some color-referenced developmental markers.

    Tim, as to your question to me, it seems pretty likely to me that I would go along with the request, or question and negotiate it civilly, or if I felt honorable along certain lines, continue and let the chips fall where they may. The first option seems to carry the most sway for me, especially if I'm asked by someone in a normal font and respectful non-authoritarian tone. I don't do very well with bombast or excessive transparent self-important power being directed at me, but I don't feel much of that now. So I feel comfortable with what you ask, Tim, and what the rest of you are offering to this question.

    I think in various ways of putting it, each of you has represented significant features of what integral can mean. The prior discussions have examined inclusivity and its potential 'idiocy' quite completely. To know what integral in cyber dialogue might be, I think about conversation, I think about how a good teacher might present and guide a discussion, I think of how a sensitive wise parent might interact with his/her child. Almost immediately these days, I turn away from anything that looks like a formal outline as I was taught in grade school, or a decision tree or algorithmic formula to get from step 1 to step 10 as I was taught in other training, or any linear approach that did not recognize the free and creative path that complexity theory acknowledges throughout nature. If I stepped into a forum that expected logical syllogistic patterns to be followed, I'd probably bow right back out of the perfectly circumscribed circle, after very brief perplexity.

    Thinking this a little through for the first time, now, I am looking at a thread as usually a direction. Sometimes it may be just a finger pointing to the moon and sometimes it might be a very specific question, goal, need, with a statement of parameters or a request for parsimony. Usually, I imagine a humanistic, organic process with a fair amount of leeway and natural meandering. Less like a photon traveling at the speed of light along a flight path, for the most part, as the shortest distance between two points; more like a river along a mild to moderate descent through mild to moderate terrain and material.

    I am thinking at the moment of one of my favorite university professors who would get to a question's elucidation along an unpredictably variable conversational route. It accounted for peering into and maybe exploring different lines than the most obvious one inherent in the literal question. After a while, this scholar would often say, as though surprised, something like, "How in the world did we get over here?" Of course he probably knew full well. Then he would pull the various threads and apparent diversions together, and through some thoughtful alchemy would, in a sense, include and transcend the apparent breadth of the conversation.

    In some of our conversations or threads, a comment or question may be presented along a tersely cognitive line, for example. If we were not particularly integral and integrative we might be pulled into the seductive gravitational field of just a conventional cognitive exposition. However, often what happens here on IN, I think, is some unconscious or somewhat conscious wisdom that may suss out that there is also a social facet to the question, a subjective aesthetic aspect that is personal to each reader, and emotional ramifications - since we aren't computerized robots, we as a collective may feel a need for "real life" experience to balance or enliven a perhaps dry cognitive accretion. We could probably look at and include many lines of being and various stages or developmental levels in a conversation, from the most basic to the most exalted, though the question was framed by the author from a very particular local perspective. As varied as these AQAL perspectives are - since they intend to include all that is discernible or articulable - we could have a very large body of perspectives and associations.

    The author can and often does influence (through her wording and maybe even redirecting of the flow) the outcome, and probably is often surprised by the diversity of the input. How human.

    So this is not a strictly linear or pre-dictable process. Inherent is some creative surprises. These surprises, I suppose, sometimes test our capacity for divergence, for reading and processing stamina, for our particular version of cognitive resonance, for contradiction, ambiguity, paradox - a whole bunch of irritating scatterings.

    I am now picturing one of those scatter plots where a number of individual responses are graphed on a plane. Visually one gets some sense of directionality, coherence, adherence to an imagined line. If I remember a little, there may be a formula that can be derived that can establish the statistical average of that cluster like a mean line. There seems to be a metaphor in here for how threads can go. Depending on how the comment or question or other contextual aspects arise, there might be a very tight clustering of points, or a looser.  If this were a forum of mainly circumstantial, tangential, word-salad thinkers, there would be no single line of sight, and anyone who stepped in to the forum might go, "Huh!?"

    In order to have a forum that a certain number of integrally interested folk can resonate with, it does seem necessary to avoid the intolerably loose clusters. And there may be some variation and creative bursts out of the pattern.

    I too wondered about David's question as to the factor of likeability, in the moment. (By the way I was a little surprised to see myself designated as "likable" - my image of myself doesn't usually coalesce in that way. And I was pleased. Enjoy the temporary grace while it's there. Unfortunately, in this bag of skin, not always so easy come, but easy to go. Oh oh, was this upper left quadrant  space-out too personally off-topic? - smiley emoticon)

    There are other factors too. There are various group dynamics' studies that point to several of them. One study showed that there were only certain ways that a group member could go outside the norm with rule-breaking, convention-breaking or risky behavior. Basically, you had to have accumulated enough brownie points. Something like that. And similar to what statistically predicts the likelihood of a marriage succeeding in longevity is a fairly constant ratio between subjectively-felt good experiences and bad - i.e. equal to or greater than 5:1. So these sorts of ordinary human social factors inevitably play into what is tolerated and what is not.

    So, after this riff, I want to come back to David's, Balder's, Tim's, and Pattye's responses to this interesting, sometimes emotionally charged - depending - and sometimes important question.

    Now, if I have done as totally nifty a job of riffing here, as I very momentarily imagine, I've probably pissed at least one person off. Be gentle on me later - I'm all geared up for now.
    Ambo


    Ambo Suno
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  05-31-2007, 12:31 PM 23644 in reply to 23596

    Re: Dead Forever?

    Dear Ambo:   I want to say:  What else to say!!!   Splendid wrap up and much calm for me.

    However,   I have to eat crow, and ask David and Tim to forgive my insinuations that I do not like to read their stuff.  Not true.   I just am not as in sync as I thought I was at one time.  That is a wait and see.  Still, I admire both of you and actually, Tim I have even read the Art and Theater forums.  I am a huge fan of both and know little compared.  There are so many things I love esp if they come from the Good The True and the Beautiful.  And we are together in that.   I have just found the greatest thread that I have been missing.  So I won't be leaving.  Cannot help myself.  It just felt like.   This is something I learned from a  very respected teacher.   Everything- all of this is just ENTERTAINMENT.   We had to repeat  it over and over in his class.  This is just ENTERTAINMENT.  We were not on-line but in a class like situation.  Without calling the name "Shadow", he could nail us so fast with our Shadow stuff using NLP.

    Not all NLP people are so talented but he was at a higher altitude.  I have ask that he be interviewed or better still, hired here and I need to keep working on that.  I will get the tape out where he does this class and see if I can add to it later.  Here is to the Good, True and Beautiful.  All of Us.   Love Pattye    And Balder.  Thanks for your beautiful quote.   "Dead Forever?!  Kiss my Ass"  :)   When I saw that skinny boy playing the drums, I was totally smitten.   Time just flies.  We must be very care/ful with it.  I am talking to myself.    PTG 

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 1:10 AM 23710 in reply to 23596

    Re: Dead Forever?


    hi ambo and pattye,

    going through this thread for the first time, i'm struck by how it's developed along two lines, it seems to me: one that the two of you have taken, and the other that others have taken. their point, the importance of the capacity and intention to listen to others, makes alot of sense to me. doesn't it to you?

    ralph



    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 7:47 AM 23719 in reply to 23710

    Re: Dead Forever?

    Hi, Ralph - as a quick response, strict adherence to the initially posted literal comment or question has advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages, I think, is that a thread can become quite small in scope, not include much, be non-integrating. An advantage is that a thread could have a more laser-like incisiveness. There are probably times when a thread starter or, later, participants want to do that too.

    Looked at in one way, divergence, elaboration, the budding and flowering of sufficiently related associations can lead the thread, perhaps, to have a  natural branching tree like appearance and quality. At what point does one, say the thread initiator or the new poster say, "Maybe we should start a new thread if we are going to go further in this direction."? Or, "I've started one over here ____." The new thread gains, maybe, precision of focus and a more comfortable scope for some of us that we can get our minds around; loses, maybe, flow, fullness of context and maybe, organicity - the normal relationships among various functions that occur with an organ or system of organs. I suppose that pruning off the branches could seem functionally and aesthetically enhancing some times, to some people. Pruning could also seem severe, un-natural, and inhibitory. It's not clear to me that a forum would thrive if we assiduously prune off a branching at every hint of divergence. The point of pruning could seem to be quasi-arbitrary, quite subjective - which is interesting since I think one of the desires for focusing on a tighter sphere, perhaps sometimes, is to achieve a more objective clarity. Limiting branchings for tighter focus and control makes sense. And sometimes a thread may be richer, more useful to people, more fun and aesthetically pleasing when we let go of control and let it ramble a bit like a grape vine; not so that it finally eats into the shingles, but with quite a liberal freedom.

    I suspect that this more flexible allowance within a thread is more comfortable and familiar to many people; and there are others who want to slice into and carefully analize AQAL characteristics of a certain presentation by some one, and branching off could feel crazy-making to the participants who felt so focused.

    Wouldn't it be hard often to say where we stop, where we branch? With your post here, for example, I notice that you didn't start another thread, post a referral link here, and say that you want to look into the meta aspects of how listening affects various threads, and do you two think that listening is important? It appears to me that someone could say that you have abstracted a sufficient degree from the initiating point of this thread, which is the sense by Tim, if I understand him correctly, that the forum felt like it was dying to him, at that moment. I don't see your post as a problematically major divergence from Tim's initial sense. What if some answered you by speaking of the physiological limitations in listening that this media-driven, aggressive, ADHD culture has inculcated in a wide swath of the population. Someone goes down a psychoneurobiological path, some one elaborates the historical cultural trends. Someone speaks of her childhood experience of trying to listen to a teacher who was painfully boring and rote.

    Should you have posted elsewhere? Should you at some point come in and take responsibility for the branchings since your particular interest in listening was expressed - should you suggest you lift that now blossoming branch out of the context of the tree or vine of human thought and conversation?

    You ask a good question whether we think it's important to have the capacity of listening. Should I have said, here, now, that, hey, Ralph, why don't we start a new thread to go into this, rather than expand the frame further on this one? I don't know. I know that it flows more easily for me to continue with this on, especially since I need to rush now and start work early this am.

    So, thanks - see you later, Ambo

    Ambo Suno
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 9:59 AM 23730 in reply to 23719

    Re: Dead Forever?

    Indeed.  A question for the forum, then:  what's the difference between spamming and branching?

    Confused [*-)]

     


    'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
    ~ Dr Hannibal Lecter
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 10:35 AM 23732 in reply to 23730

    Re: Dead Forever?

    There may be some grey areas, but in general, I think a helpful distinction is this:  branching happens organically out of a discussion in which mutual listening has been taking place.  It's an intuitive or associational leap, and I agree with Ambo that allowing for this can make the board more fertile, friendly, and fun.  Spamming is treating a thread like a graffiti board -- posting unrelated material on it for your own purposes, without paying much if any attention to the discussion that is actually taking place.  It's a relational thing, and may only become apparent over time, as a pattern.
    May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 12:02 PM 23738 in reply to 23732

    Re: Dead Forever?

    well said, balder.

    i didn't mean to imply, ambo, that i'm above all this myself.  i certainly drift into the grey areas from time to time, enough even occasionally to need gentle reminding that i've gotten off topic.

    the great thing about this is we appear now to be talking about, if not the original topic, at least a close branch to it.

    ralph



    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 1:13 PM 23746 in reply to 23732

    Re: Dead Forever?

    balder:
    branching happens organically out of a discussion in which mutual listening has been taking place.  It's an intuitive or associational leap, and I agree with Ambo that allowing for this can make the board more fertile, friendly, and fun.  Spamming is treating a thread like a graffiti board -- posting unrelated material on it for your own purposes, without paying much if any attention to the discussion that is actually taking place.  It's a relational thing, and may only become apparent over time, as a pattern.

    Yes.  To put it into an integral frame, spamming is egocentric, branching is about transcending the ego in responding to others.   Spam feels like an affront.  It discounts the thoughts and feelings of others. Branching is the expression of interpersonal relating, though it doesn't necessarily have to be cuddly:  it could be aggressive as well as 'friendly and fun'.  There have been some great fights on the forum!   If people care passionately about an issue, a fierce argument could ensue and it could still be a positive - why not? Wilber has been picking fights for years, and seemingly having a great time in the process!  The point is, its still about relating...  

    ~ D


    'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
    ~ Dr Hannibal Lecter
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 2:28 PM 23754 in reply to 23746

    Re: Dead Forever?

    Wow. Yes. Totally awesome guys. And this idea -this reality-of branches is exactly why any sort of strict amber ruling -or even a dry "we respectfully agree to stay on the [objective, 3rd person] 'topic' at hand'" - will just not fly and is or was never the point. No branches, or leaves, just a boring linear trunk if not precisely cut out (now deceased) plank of wood. But David's brilliant garden metaphor -that threads need tending and cultivating - is part of the beauty too. Indeed, there can be overgrowth and chaos and the individual beauty of each blossom, or harmonious beauty of the naturally occurring mosaic can indeed get lost.

    And David, you were truly brilliant here. How skillfully you stirred a conversation. When I saw "yes, that's the point I was trying to make" I went -dang, he's good!Smile [:)]

    And for the record, let this thread branch out into the world's first Integral dating service for all I care!

    Pattye and ambo, glad to have y'all sticking around.

    Tim

     


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 2:55 PM 23757 in reply to 23093

    • rollie is not online. Last active: 10-20-2007, 8:32 AM rollie
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-19-2006
    • Boulder, CO and Alberta, Canada
    • Posts 127
    • Points 3,125

    Re: Dead Forever?

    To your original point, Tim, the "Most Active Users" list is starting to look a little healthier.  Thanks for the loving swat on the backside of the head.  (And, I am sorry for spamming the "SERVER UPGRADE" thread....)

    We're looking much forward to having you on the AQAL Art call tomorrow!  Hope everyone can join us.  And to all, a great weekend....

     

    rollie


    ~Rollie @ ISC
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-01-2007, 3:08 PM 23760 in reply to 23757

    Re: Dead Forever?

    You just be a good boy Rollie, and mamma wont have to turn your punishment (and your rear end) into a new art form.Stick out tongue [:P]

    On a more serious note -can't wait for the call!


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-02-2007, 12:22 AM 23804 in reply to 23760

    Re: Dead Forever?

    This thread, for the first time since it was started, just almost finally got bumped off the page!

    Tee hee hee. I shall keep bumping it to the top and competitively challenge forum participants to send it back down and away again with their frequent postings on other interesting threads and discussions. Maybe even send it into the oblivion of forgotten yesterday because there is so much activity. And in this way, I shall bring the forum back to life - and then I shall rule the world!

     

     

     


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-02-2007, 1:03 AM 23807 in reply to 23760

    Re: Dead Forever?


    what? is KW going to be simul-taking calls on aqal art and app. 2?

    anyway, you guys have given us newer folk a great lesson in the aqal art of threading, and branching, and unspamming?

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-02-2007, 7:44 AM 23823 in reply to 23807

    • rollie is not online. Last active: 10-20-2007, 8:32 AM rollie
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-19-2006
    • Boulder, CO and Alberta, Canada
    • Posts 127
    • Points 3,125

    Re: Dead Forever?

    He's doing an AQAL call every second week, and an IS call on the alternate week.  So, today is Integral Art and next week is App II....

    ~Rollie @ ISC
    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  06-02-2007, 2:13 PM 23851 in reply to 23823

    Re: Dead Forever?

    Oops! It almost went off the page again. tee hee

    Here - the first time I come onto the forum and it's gone . . . .then I'll stop.Smile [:)]


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 5 of 19 (280 items)   « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 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