No kidding, Marianthi!

I would add  that until our social evolution had progressed enough, women could not be seen as well-developed spiritual beings, a partner in the quest for enlightenment. We were not seen as being on the same level. So a woman might seek enlightenment as a nun, for example, but would forever be relegated to support roles in whatever religion they adhered to. Even if there was ample evidence to the contrary in scripture, or revealed truth or whatnot, the cultural  line of development would have always indicated that sexual relaionship would be a diversion, rather than a true path.

Liz

---

Upgrade to ISC!
http://integralinstitute.org/public/static/multispirit.aspx
http://pods.zaadz.com/ii

IAMisHome:

Romanticism, I seek in the dictionnary is the expression of "me" in feelings and emotion rather than rationnal. Can the romanticism expressed in other kind of relations?  I never knew a relation so romantic even if we were spiritual friends. Mr Tea, you speak of romanticism negatively it seems.  That I felt was like that I felt somedays in front of the majesty of the world.  When one see a human being so kind, so thoughtful than believe that God is living.

I've met many women who are operating from a preconventional/Magical/egocentric worldview with romance and soulmates, and who view romance and love as something that "completes" them, rather than something that they give away freely. They believe that the perfect man or perfect relationship will save them from loss, loneliness, destructive emotional habits and negative self-perceptions, and it does, briefly. I'm deeply moved by seeing the futility and suffering caused by this perspective first-hand, although I've not been in a relationship with such a person myself.

There is the problem with becoming fixated on higher states of consciousness, whether romantic or drug-induced -- they reveal some divine spark, but they are temporary, and when they fade, we suffer and go back to searching for something to get us back "up there" again and ease our pain. The difficulty is that, although higher states can give us a glimpse, our Original Heart and Original Mind are not "up there", there are right here, right now. In life, there is the temptation to try to escape from this impermanence and find ways of insulating ourselves from pain -- from our own pain and by extension, the pain of others, so much so that it actually hardens our heart and prevents us from being in touch with universal love. Spiritual practice, as I see it, melts the armor of the heart and mind and enables us to see clearly.

Mr Teacup,

Did you already read Wilber describing God at 2nd person? This is Pure Romanticism.  It is not the one of  "preconventional/Magical/egocentric worldview " but romanticism all the same.  The Perfect man or woman is all He or She is.  Just Perfect.  Letting arise what it is.  Just to see That is pure romanticism in my mind or better said in my Heart. And when you see that, it's not the day-to-day difficulties that remove the Love inside.  Cause each one is complete in him/herself, included in another greater part that is the Us, that in its turn included in All of us. 

I believe we are so much afraid of this egocentric worldview of soulmate, we cannot see the Romantic beauty of Life. You gave the exemple of the postman as an intersubjective relation.  I agree with you. We have thousands of encounters in the day-to-day life. You look them in their eyes and You contact.  A mere beautiful romantic contact.

I fully agree that when we are having romantic feelings, we get a glimpse of the divine, but to me, there are very important differences in the way the different stages report higher states of consciousness. An preconventional, purely egocentric person describes the divine experience as including only the two people who are in love. I have been there myself, and my feeling is that being so absorbed in a romantic bliss that it blinds you to the actual living experience of the many people around you that you are not in love with is not a sign of great spiritual development. And in American culture at least, one very popular image and model of love is of two lovers locked in each other's gaze, totally absorbed in their feelings for the other person. To explore that phenomenon is to ask ourselves, "What does this experience mean?" and we can answer that question in a shallow way by saying "What I have with you is divine bliss, so it's fate and you are The One!", and then the bubble pops, become depressed and lose all faith that life is even worthwhile. Or in a very deep way by saying "What I have with you is divine bliss, and everything is One!" Both are divine, but one is spiritually developed.

So in some ways, I think the egocentric and kosmocentric view of romantic bliss are exactly inverted. The egocentric person thinks he or she has found what is divine in the universe -- the relationship. While the kosmocentric person also thinks he or she has found what is divine in the universe -- the universe, which includes the relationship. It seems to me that confusing these two is an example of the pre-trans fallacy, and it seems reasonable to expect that an integral approach to relationships would clarify the distinction.

Respectfully and wearing a party hat,
Mr. Teacup.

OK guys, not to interrupt the conversation, but a brief stocktake:

The AQAL of Relationships

The Quadrants:

Upper Left Quadrant:       The inside view of the participants: My thoughts and feelings about you, your thoughts and feelings about me.

Upper Right Quadrant:     The outside view of the participants: Our physical natures (gender, biological relationship, age) also number of participants, and any physical expression of the relationship

Lower Right Quadrant:     The outside view of the relationship: Our relationship in its social context - a marriage, a sexual relationship, an extra-marital affair, a guru's relationship with a disciple/mother/father/daughter/son/brother/sister etc, friendship, chance encounter, all influenced by historical and social factors

Lower Left Quadrant:       The inside view of the relationship: Our relationship as it exists as a holon in itself, transcending and including our individual thoughts and feelings.   This is intersubjectivity.  (Technically, the relationship seen like this, as a holon, is the 'outside', not the 'inside', of a 'we', but let's keep it simple...)

 

The Levels (humorous and sketchy outline!):

Detachment, absence of relationship

Mutual empathy with limited interaction (eg via e-mail etc) 

Initial interaction physically, cognitively, emotionally

Less superficial friendship/mutual regard with more regular/intense contact

Deeper friendship/mutual regard involving trust, commitment, affection, some physical expression

Deeper levels of intimacy, may involve physical intimacy as well as emotional...etc.....

And so on.

  

OK, questions occur:  intersubjectivity can be healthy and unhealthy.  Relationships grow, flourish, die.   What are the important reasons?  What's the secret?     

Are we spiritually healthy if we have little intersubjectivity in our lives?  Should we actively seek it?  If we evolve in terms of consciousness, how does this show in terms of intersubjectivity?   Does an experience of LL deep intimacy necessarily involve a deepening in each of the other Quadrants, as AQAL would predict?

etc etc.....

Right, sorry to interrupt.... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
~ Dr Hannibal Lecter

actively seeking romantic bliss happens when one is actively seeking.....relationships grow, flourish and die -

 ever heard the saying 'when you least expect it -  expect!'

 and speaking of secrets.....impossible! secret is a secret!

...ummm...still one can speak of rainbow bodies and dragon - slayings n' such an so forth

LOve's sigh... and brook's murmur..and.... "how could i forget you?"

We can live whatever dream we want

if we dare to want it

LOve manifests its creations

do we care to love enough

to create that heaven on earth

bliss filled nights of golden rose dust

ambrosial elixir lighting the air

through pine covered hills on fire

your taste merges with mine

so i forget who I am anymore

but this one heart

beating the name of God . . .

that light in your eyes

I see when I look in the mirror

other lives in us

that dances our dream

can we fail

I think not

for this love

can never go astray

it is born of source

to the music of Omega

and grows even now

for Eternity......"

~author ...?

 

Davidd:

The AQAL of Relationships

The Quadrants:

Upper Left Quadrant:       The inside view of the participants: My thoughts and feelings about you, your thoughts and feelings about me.

Upper Right Quadrant:     The outside view of the participants: Our physical natures (gender, biological relationship, age) also number of participants, and any physical expression of the relationship

Lower Right Quadrant:     The outside view of the relationship: Our relationship in its social context - a marriage, a sexual relationship, an extra-marital affair, a guru's relationship with a disciple/mother/father/daughter/son/brother/sister etc, friendship, chance encounter, all influenced by historical and social factors

Lower Left Quadrant:       The inside view of the relationship: Our relationship as it exists as a holon in itself, transcending and including our individual thoughts and feelings.   This is intersubjectivity.  (Technically, the relationship seen like this, as a holon, is the 'outside', not the 'inside', of a 'we', but let's keep it simple...)

 

Davidd, great that you're fleshing out some AQAL stuff about relationships.

One minor point: should we not be using the term quadrivia instead of quadrants since the relationship is not an individual holon?

---

http://pelle.zaadz.com/

pelleB:

One minor point: should we not be using the term quadrivia instead of quadrants since the relationship is not an individual holon?

Ooh, maybe you're right, Pelle...  'Relationship', in one way, is an individual holon, as a noospheric concept, in the same way as 'nation' is an individual holon, even though every nation is different, just like every relationship...  Generalities are pretty boring to think about though.  We want juicy specifics!   I do anyway...  And as you rightly say, each relationship is an individual holon too....

The Levels part could use some work.  'It must be love...'   In talking about a real love (or to use Teacup's word, deep and committed 'romantic') relationship are we talking about a 'subtle' level relationship?   Beyond which at-one-ment renders mutual relationships obsolete?  Yet the spiritual exemplars weren't all hermits (as I mentioned, Buddha and Jesus were very sociable) - and even the hermits had God....

 

---

'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
~ Dr Hannibal Lecter

First of all, Mr Teacup, no matter what name you give to love (egocentric, worldcentric or kosmocentric), love is love and in my mind, love of any kind will be always better than war.  About the deceptions around the romantic love, could them conduce to a desire of a better understanding of ourself?  Could them give us a direction to a better know how? So like all the other things in the world, our experiences allow us to evolve.  Sometimes slowly, sometimes very, very slowly but we have the conditions to evolve.

I was SO grateful to can live this kind of egocentric romantic bliss, even if it was the poor quality.  Contrarly to you, I never had this experience in the past and the experience allowed me to live my fantasies about that and put it aside.  We have to live those experiences to transcend them.

And again today,  if I have the marvelous blessing to encounter a man with whom I have this kind of relationship where I lost myself in his eyes (even if it is for few seconds), I say Oh yes!  To live life intensively is not deny the great spirituality but to give thanks to it.  And concerning the need to clarify both, I agree with you but you know, the world will continue to turn without it and people will continue to love others.

 

Hi David,

I love the work you've done fleshing out the AQAL terrain of relationships. Like you, I was struck by Ken's comment in The Miracle of We about a relationship existing only within the communications between individuals. And I started thinking about how many of my past/present "relationships" have met this L/L critera of empathy and perspective taking (ouch!).

I would add to your excellent exploration of the quadrants and L/L intersubjectivity between individuals in relationship intersubjective cultural values, beliefs and gender roles etc. I remember a friend of several years back who became very annoyed when I could not tie her son's necktie for graduation. It's a skill for a variety of reasons I never attained. (I keep one tie tied for all occasions and carefully slip it on and off, knot intact ) But where is it written Man=knows how to tie neck tie? Needless to say, for that and other more serious interpretations of cultural norms that relationship did not last. These norms, expectations, beliefs, are interior and shape UL, UR and the L/L space between individuals.

Again, much appreciation for your insights in this thread. 

 

---

Namaste,
Harv

"(The) Practice of love is always available- and expressive of your deepest truth- right now."
-David Deida

Excellent points, Harv!  

You're so right - the LL is full of expectations... Which tend to inhibit the growth of the relationship more than help it, wouldn't you say?   I recall the founder of Gestalt therapy, Fritz Perls, repeating the mantra:  'I am not in this world to meet anyone else's expectations...'    And we're not, of course.  Yet how we set them for others as they set them for us.....

Good wishes

 

---

'This is all the time you'll ever have'.
~ Dr Hannibal Lecter

David,

Co-creation is spiritual.  So if you're alive you have necesserlay intersubjectivity that is creating. The question is about the conscious intersubjectivity.  Like the individual consciousness and practice enlightnment makes the person fuller and lighter, the interpersonal consciousness does the same for relationships.  Increasing the well-being and the happiness. And multiplying it, making a healthier world ultimately.  More respect, more tolerance, etc.

Unhealthy is certainly, maybe with other things, about dependance, unrespect of other and the lack of curiosity about the other. Relationships can evolve and last a life time as you know but how can we have always growing intersubjectivity? As you said in the opening of the thread,  we have to choose to do it. 

The relationship depends of many factors: some of UL (stages of each one, reciprocity of emotions, ...), of UR (does the physical attractiveness is UR?, ages, sex,.), of LR (for exemple, the objet of the relation), all being interpreted intersubjectivily in LL.  The solidity of the relationship depends at the same time of suffisantly of similarities to be able to support the differences. And the capacity to accept compromises. 

My work is directly about that.  I am an intermediary between two parts who have to work together for the well-being of another part. Many years ago, it was really problematic.  With time, I reached to bring them at a level where a healthy discussion was possible.  The first thing I teached was the self respect. After that, the respect for the other part. I brought an equilibrium in the relationship. Then, to put oneself in the other's shoes, to ask something possible and desirable for the other.  And, never, never, never to use violence, or exagerate pressure, or put the other in embarassing situation. And it worked very, very well even if the means of each part are extremely different. 

how to tie neck tie? bluuushing sooooo intriguingly ...beats me, i never had to tie a neck tie, relatively speaking!

hbishop:

I would add to your excellent exploration of the quadrants and L/L intersubjectivity between individuals in relationship intersubjective cultural values, beliefs and gender roles etc. I remember a friend of several years back who became very annoyed when I could not tie her son's necktie for graduation. It's a skill for a variety of reasons I never attained. (I keep one tie tied for all occasions and carefully slip it on and off, knot intact ) But where is it written Man=knows how to tie neck tie? Needless to say, for that and other more serious interpretations of cultural norms that relationship did not last. These norms, expectations, beliefs, are interior and shape UL, UR and the L/L space between individuals.

hbishop,

It would be really surprising that this relationship finished for a neck tie!  I tried to read again The miracle of We and not found it.  Nevertheless, the neck tie was surely a metaphor for something more important.  And you failed to read her/your soul.

Helen and hbishop,  if you really want to know how to tie a neck tie, I can do it with you. 

Davidd:

Excellent points, Harv!  

You're so right - the LL is full of expectations... Which tend to inhibit the growth of the relationship more than help it, wouldn't you say?   I recall the founder of Gestalt therapy, Fritz Perls, repeating the mantra:  'I am not in this world to meet anyone else's expectations...'    And we're not, of course.  Yet how we set them for others as they set them for us.....

Good wishes

Another LL aspect that occurs to me is how the intersubjectivity of the romantic relationship is situated in a greater intersubjective context of groups of friends, etc, which influences it in various ways; and how if that factor is lacking it can cause problems - I'm thinking not of the aspect of expectations per se, but of the ongoing processing of the relationship.

I'm thinking of a few women I've been friends with who had partners who were manifestly bad for them, and over time - as the friends kept staying, or going back to, these men - they became isolated in that none of their friends wanted to talk with them about the relationship.  Another possible way this isolation could happen is if the couple is having a secretive affair; or the couple could wrap themselves in some sort of cultic isolation as Robert Masters talks about.

In any of these scenarios, it seems likely that the relationship would be more unhealthy than otherwise, due to the lack of processing that comes with a healthy open (in the sense of  "not hidden" or "informationally open") relationship; it could also be more difficult getting past or processing such a relationship when it ends.

So it's not just about the expectations etc. of LL, but the ongoing interactivity with larger elements of community, which shape a relationship between two people.

arthur

---

IIzaadz pod - http://pods.zaadz.com/ii - combines the best of I-I and zaadz. If you're turquoise and you know it, drop on by. :)

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn