Mark

Love in the WE

Don't you think it is harder to make a WE with someone when the ones in the WE don't have the same view, larger and smaller?  Or do you think the ones may have a same larger view but with different paradigm?  Or say otherly to have a different organisation of their views?  

I feel blessed to have found someone putting so much energy in WE

Martine

Martine,

It was interesting that today one of my staff came to ME and she is having problems with WE (relating to other staff). I showed her the MAZE diagram and the ME/WE Principle, and we talked about how this works. As I explained it to her and as she started to understand it, for people to be WE, they have to occupy the same layer "space" and once they are both in the same layer "space" WE is possible. However, if two people stay in their own layer "space" and don't move to the same layer "space", then there can only be ME.

An example of this is - Somebody in W1 (layer "space") has to move to those who may be at M2, as the M2's can't be in the W1 space unless they have already gone through the openings. Therefore, we can all be WE in any of the layers "space", but are only WE when occupying the same layer "space". It is up to those involved to move to the layer "space" where WE is possible.

There is another part to this - say two people occupy M1, then the WE can be about ME, but together. However, if two people occupy W1, the WE can be a true WE, as that layer "space" allows for those in that layer "space" to see much more and understand what it is to be WE.

I know this is a lot of WE's and ME's but this is just starting to unfold as such, and as a result of your questions more is being drawn out (thank you).

To your direct question - "Don't you think it is harder to make a WE with someone when the ones in the WE don't have the same view, larger and smaller?  Or do you think the ones may have a same larger view but with different paradigm?  Or say otherly to have a different organisation of their views?"

Having said all of the above, people will not be able to see each others views unless they occupy the same layer "space", so no WE until in the same layer "space". The ones with the larger view or different paradigm may be in the same layer "space" but in different rooms (have to think about that one). Again the different organisation would be different rooms.

Hopefully this is becoming clearer, as it is about being able to occupy the same layer "space" that allows us to see and understand. Where you get, say two people, who are in different layers "spaces", M1 and M3 and neither are prepared to move and occupy the other person's layer "space", then they will never understand each other's views and there will never be WE. In that case there will only be ME.

In our case I think WE have both been able to move to the same layer "space" and therefore can be WE and in this space there is Love and Truth, as we have spoken about, and I feel blessed as well, thank you.

Mark  

Martine,

Had missed this posting of yours, as I was working backwards and have just discovered this one. Yes, I agree my model is not easy to conceive at first, as I have to find the layer "space" others are in in order to be in the same layer "space", and therefore gain an understanding. Yes, the MAZE is frightening in the use of the word, as in many ways this is counter-intuitive, as it looks like a MAZE, but it isn't really.

As for reading, no don't read any form of fiction or science fiction as such, but yes have plenty of paranormal events in my life, so I guess this is where I get this "stuff" from.

In regard to seeing my point of view, I would not express it that way, as a point of view can only be a point of ME. WE does not require a point of view (in normal terms), it just requires a "space" for connection, a "space" where we are able to express our point of view and to see deeply into it, to draw it out and to be with that view, non-judgemental, but to be able to see all the other person can see, no reasoning, no "trying to figure it out", just listening to the story (which is what most points of views are - stories), and allowing the person to draw further and further into the story, and allow it to unfold in them, as it is part of WE. 

But I would say that we have found a "space" where it is WE, as we have both listened and expressed ourselves (no judgement) and drawing eash other out in the "space" we are in. The more we listen to each others stories the deeper it becomes WE.

If you remember, we started many posting ago talking about a non judgemental system, and trying to see if there was one. I think this WE is a "space" where there is one and we have created it. By asking and asking and seeking more and more.

You have drawn this out of me beautifully, in that you were willing to come back and back and kept asking, and building this "space" (thereby building the WE). What you have done is drawn this out of me, as it did not exist before this posting, as the more I thought about your questions the more I could see what I was trying to convey (the more the story unfolded in me). Thank you.

Not too sure about your last line, "maybe it is cause I want WE is not only yours".

Need you to clarify that.

More to ponder.

Mark

Will try email again and if it doesn't work this time, will report it to the webmaster that it is not working. 

Mark

Reading your posts, I can't do otherly to see a strong ME.  Don't misunderstand, ME (as me) gives a high value appreciating a lot this will to be unique, someone creating a tone of his own.  This strong ME gives a WE different and new, so attractive. Tell me - I love this idea of story- how do act another ME in a WE where one of the ME is so present?

I believe our WE is a good exemple. WE are sharing on the base of your model, not ours. Your ME try to convince another ME of the validity of his model.  Do you think since WE are sharing on it, our WE is already existing not only cause we are doing something together but also this other ME (me in occurence) agree the WE and its content being in it.  All that meaning, since WE are acting in it, the two parts, the two beings have already found (innerly) a way to be a WE. Even a WE at another layer in space.  And I wonder if it's not the ME, precisely, in the WE who stop the finding of the door to be sure the ME will be again there even in a new layer.  One may left a lot of place to the other in the WE, but cannot and should not disappear.  So, we could say, each MEs give oneselve the autorization to eclipse themselves letting be WE when they are convinced their ME are not suiciding themselves.  And the model becomes ours. And the door is opening.

As I see it, WE must respect this time necessary to the parts of the WE, to let WE becoming strong.  And you said, Truth and Love, hand in hand, are the core of that road. 

Heart is the MAZE.  When WE see that it's less frightening.

For WE Love

Martine

Martine,

I guess from the point of being in a layer "space", the WE is "movable", as we can be ME one minute, then engage and be WE, the next minute and then back to the ME again. The ability to move from layer "space" to layer "space" is where the ME becomes WE. However, if two people are in different layers "spaces" and neither can move (or don't want to move) to the same layer "space" then there can be no WE, there can only be ME (two as such).

I think in our postings here we have been both ME and WE, as we move from layer "space" to layer "space" and try be occupy the same layer "space", so that WE can exist. We have both been able to move and that would mean that we are probably in the W areas of the MAZE, as we are then much freer to move about as and when we wish.

Therefore, we can create a tone of our own, and when we correspond we move from layer "space" ME to WE and then back again. As we have gone back and forth, we moved closer to a layer "space" and therefore at times been WE.

There is no attachment as far as the ME and WE are concerned, it is only the layers "spaces" we occupy.

However, when WE, the creativity is much stronger, as WE can create much more than ME.

As for the story part, this comes from a book I stumbled across written by Mary Watkins called - Waking Dreams. Here she deals with what is called - The Imaginal World and the story part is very profound.

I think WE is happening because we are in the same layer "space". In the WE layer "space" we do not have to agree with each other, all we have to do is to listen and BE, and the ME disappears at that MOMENT. It is magic.

Yes, "ME are not suiciding themselves.  And the model becomes ours. And the door is opening".  When it is WE, yes the model becomes ours, but only in that MOMENT when we are WE. Afterwards we go back to being ME. However, when you get to the W1, W2, etc layers "spaces" then you search out for WE spaces all of the time and you move back and forth, in and out of layers "spaces" in order to try and create the WE with others (even if the others are in the ME layers "spaces").

Your mention of time is important, because yes, we need time to listen to the other's story and to become WE, if we try and rush it, then all we will get is ME, or if while we are listening to the other person we are "miles away" in our thoughts, then there can be no WE. We have to have time to be with the other, otherwise we are not in the same layer "space".

You have just given me a good idea, the MAZE could be done as a heart, rather than simply being round, that is very good, thank you. I will amend the drawing as such. Yes, you could say this is the "heart" of ME/WE Principle.

More to ponder.

For WE Love

Looking forward to hearing from you again.

Mark    

Ah, it's exciting!  I read your mail and it's that I said:  Yes, yes.  What a feeling, the One of WE!  At work, when WE did that about a project, each one coming with their idea and no one bad cause it's not like that WE is thinking.  WE build the project or the NOW together.  Each piece, in peace, one at a time.  Thank you for your inspiration! Thank you to remember that to me!  Say Yes to the Life cause the Life say always Yes to Us.

You're a blessing for this board.

For WE Love

Martine

Martine,

Thank you for your words, as I think we have arrived in the WE space and we can both see what each other can see.

This goes back to one of our first posts on the colours and Spiral Dynamics and when we talked about how could there be some way of not being judgemental in regards to colours. With Spiral Dynamics, if you use this, we are prone to seeing other people, as organge, or green or red, etc, which is not helpful, as then we immediately put up barriers to each other, based upon our judgement of the other person.

However, by using the MAZE method and the ME/WE Principle what we do when we meet somebody is not to judge them, but to see the layer "space" they are in and if we can go to that layer "space"we are able to BE with them and BE WE. No judgement, not assessing the other person, but just being in the MOMENT as WE.

This might not always be the case, as we may not be able to move to their layer "space", so we may need them to move to our layer "space" instead, so that WE can exist. But that is up to them.

What we have to recognise and discern is when we meet someone and they are not able to move to our layer "space", we need to move to theirs.

We do this in Love and Truth, not as a judgemental way.

Wouldn't it be nice if all humans were able to recognise this and use this system for communicating and creating such as when you said "WE build the project or the NOW together.  Each piece, in peace, one at a time."  

If we could, as humans, do this then what would be possible? Anything I think and perhaps even more.

Once again thank you for your words and being WE, as this has brought out all of this in ME, so it can be WE.

Love in WE.

Mark

What I see in your model:

Simplicity

More you have understanding, more you are able to adapt yourself at different others, and different episodes in their self so the mind is really important  ;)

The core is the heart cause you need, first, the desire to be WE

Freedom, speaking in colors, you are white and take colours of the WE, so who cannot you meet?

Truth, based on Love, oriented on Love

Mark,

I could find and enumerate a lot of problems with your model, but if I do so, I'm out of WE.  If I choose to be WE with you,  WE will continue to build on that and the truth of the model will emerge by itself.

Martine

It is nice Mark just to make it right now! Look at the beauty in the other and wish sharing it in WE.  NOW is so great with this emotion!

What could WE make with this spirit?

Martine

Martine,

Yes Simplicity lies within the model, but with all models - they are either wrong, partial or incomplete (even Ken's AQAL model) and this one is no different. There are problems with trying to make it everything, but as with all models, we are simply not able to represent in the outside world that which we can conceive in our consciousness, as we do not have the spacial place and dimensions to represent them. They do not exist as yet.

Perhaps one day we will be able to communicate in such a way that full understanding is conveyed of what we are concieving. But between now and then all we can do is to draw simple diagrams to try and pass onto others what we have conceived and the meaning contained therein.

Hopefully others will understand, as you have. If the model and all of the symbols which we place around it enables people to see and understand each other in a more holisitc and integral manner, then the model will be a help, if not then we must move on.

You see, the one thing I cannot convey to you and others is what it feels like for ME to be WE, as only I can feel what I feel. You may get a sense and feel something similar, but that is what you feel. We can get a sense of being in the same layer "space" and therefore be WE, but even then WE still lives in the ME. The ultimate in paradoxes!

Therefore, what can WE produce?

I think WE can start others thinking in a similar way and increase their awareness of what it is to be WE and in that case all that is Love and Truth.

Mark

Martine, the sense of the NOW and WE can be conveyed, but it is not easy and yes the emotion (although I tend to steer away from them most of the time, that is another whole story) is great to be WE, as the feeling is very "grounding" and "earthy".

What could WE make with this spirit? WE could make whatever we liked. It is up to us.

Mark

A model is just an aid, a reminder for the action.  And I follow you in this view that some day we will be able to share the emotion in WE.  We'll be able to tune another into the heart.  We come closer when we wish tuning someone else.  We open ourself to another and we agree to let in someone else.  Wishing so much to have this encounter. That is counting is not the form or the symbols, it's all that around.  The reason to be here doing a model, it is Love.  WE.  Without that there is no use for life.

I hope you'll agree that I paste here some parts of your paper.  It allows to open our eyes on our way to act in life. 

The first model is to do what has always been done (merely repeating the past), the second model is to be a passive participant in the future (where at times the past is repeated, while at other times something new is created), while the third model is to actively engage in the future (with no regard to what has happened before and actively creating the moment).

You name the first one, Pastzip, the second, Passactive, and the third one, Createmoment which are very expressive   The reading of your paper rang bell for me.  How we do this things often!  Only repeating our same responses.  One comment and we start arguing.  It is our way to interact, not interested by the other but to gain our point or to be interesting. We are apparently in WE but it is only an appearance.

I'd like listen to your way to practice.  How do you do in your every day life?  What kind of reminder do you have?  When someone is not open, do you insist? 

I insist

Martine

Martine,

Yes, you may paste my work on this, as and when you feel it appropriate, as if others wish to read and see, then let them, as this material is not mine, but belongs to all.

We operate automatically in many ways and I guess this is due to the nature of our reflexes and it is much more efficient just to do things "on auto" and get on with life. But I think our thoughts steal us from ourselves and steal our lives, it is the thief that visits each and everyday and takes away our chance to see life as it really is, as if we really don't need to be present, just "get on with it".

I often think that 95% of our thoughts are for pure entertainment, you know, to keep us occupied from the time we open our eyes at birth, until the day we close them at death. A type of "radio God' that plays on in our heads with most of it nonsense. It is the 5% that means something that we seem to spend all of our life looking for and trying to work out why we have it (life that is).

So how do we shut this "radio God" off, and therefore allow us to be present? (although it comes in handy sometimes, like when sitting in a waiting room for a doctor or dentist, it keeps one occupied, instead of reading the old magazines in the waiting rooms - laugh).

I think the first step to "stopping" "radio God" and to try and listen to the 5% is to recognise this, that most of the streams of thought are there just to "fill in the spaces" and are a series of habits or reflexes (as Bohm refers to them as), and as a reflex, they bring nothing new, but just keep playing the same old stuff over and over, one minute giving us pleasure and then the next giving us pain.

Eventually we just have to say - stop, and start to clear the stream and say thank you, but I don't need that at the moment.

This is not easy to do, and takes a lot of practise and practise, but start with a little bit, stay focused and stay in the present. Then next time remind yourself again, and bring yourself into the present and so it goes. Eventually after a lot of practice one has included this response of not listen to the "radio God" and being present. In the end one has actually changed the system, so it changes you.

When someone is not open and we try and try, then there is nothing we can do. If we can't get to their layer "space" or they block us, then there is little we can do. All we can do is to walk and leave them alone, as we cannot insist. In fact, the harder we try to insist, the worse it gets, and the further the space is between the two of us.

However, by giving away all power, all control and all expectations, we move to a layer "space" where other things happen and it is in this layer "space" that we will eventually feel the WE.

As I often say to other people, you never have to decide to do one thing or another, but understand what you are doing and understand what will happen. If one makes choices then one has to live with the choices.

Look forward to hearing from you again.

WE

Mark  

It would seem this thread has had a break for a while. While on the break the MAZE model of the ME/WE Principle has grown.

Including an understanding that this model will hopefully replace the current personality models that we use so much in our assessment of other people (including the colours of SD).

Is it not time that we saw people for where they are and not what they are, and give them the ability to move to spaces where they can be WE and not ME? 

By doing this, people may be able to see why others do the things they do. Do they do them for ME or for WE and in understanding this we can see all that is done?

Mark