Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Brainstorming a new model of development

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 11:46 #101322

Egor Azanov wrote:
More on the point why we need comprehensive maps.

At each moment we operate as a complex multiplicity of sub-beings, organized in a forest-like hierarchies. Each sub-being can be mapped to the point on this four-dimensional matrix.

The goal is not to "grow out" of "lower" modes of expression. But (1) to balance and organize all sub-beings so that the system as a whole operates smoothly and with little tension aka suffering (2) grow into and/or create more interesting modes of expression. Process of growth/evolution happens naturally when there's little additional unnecessary tension/suffering.

Knowing the different types of expression, different types of interaction between them and patterns of their evolution help us achieve just that. Minimize suffering and promote healthy being-becoming.

This applies to humans and groups of humans and ecosystems and planetary systems as well.
Hi Egor - can you please explain what you mean by "forest-like hierarchies"?

Thanks,
Michael
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 12:08 #101323

Yes, Michael, with pleasure.

There are pyramid-like hierarchies. For simplicity, let's say there's one thing on the top layer, three things on the second and ten on the third.

The connections are from one layer to another, there are no if any connections that jump two or more layers.

A real-life example would be an army. One commander in chief, several generals, more colonels and a lot of soldiers.

A forest-like hierarchy however, does not have a well-defined top. Or, better, there's no single entity on top of it. We can imagine it as relations between many pyramid-like hierarchies some of them are upside down. Also, there are many connections between different layers.

Decisions in pyramid-like hierarchies are usually made at the top and spread down to the bottom layers which have little say in making a choice.

Decisions in forest-like hierarchies are made by an emergent consensus. For the specific decision a specific part of the forest will play the role of the top entity. This part can still be a single entity, it can be a pyramid-like hierarchy embedded in the forest or it can be a very complex set of relations between entities.

Still, we can roughly define some layers in the forest. Taking some complex living organism as an example we have several layers: molecules and chemical reactions, cells, organs, feelings and thought processes. We can't exactly say that a thought is on top of it and controls everything else. A single thought or a single cell may die and an organism may not even notice it. A powerful thought (like intention to meditate each day) can change the whole forest. Damage on the layer of organs may kill the organism. Bad nutrition causes persistent damage on the level of cells, may cause heavy damage to organs, leading to bad thoughts that cause more bad nutrition.

A thought is not a thing in itself, but an emergent consensus from a forest-like hierarchy that includes molecules, cells, organs, feelings, other thoughts, relationships between all them and the environment.

At different moments different parts of the forest form this consensus. And we feel like different selves. Which, of course, we are.
Last Edit: 19 Nov 2015 12:10 by Egor Azanov.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 12:35 #101324

Egor Azanov wrote:

First. The model of cessation event from The Mind Illuminated book.

1. Our mind is composed of multiple sub-minds organized in complex forest-like hierarchies.
2. These sub-minds can form committees with different agendas/intentions.
3. They debate, and the winning committee takes the executive seat and from now on is both observer and producer of experience.
4. Other sub-minds either follow the winner or shut up and hide.
5. With training in concentration we can unite more and more sub-minds under the same intention.
6. Cessation event happens when there is a committee of sub-minds as observer but for some reason they do not produce any experience. So it's blank, no space, no time.
7. But this cessation event is observed only by the committee that is now in the executive seat. Those hiding do not have the direct knowledge of emptiness.
8. Subsequent cessation events are (hopefully) observed by more and more sub-minds, eventually by all of them as one.

This, for example, can explain why for some people first cessation produces major changes in thinking and behavior, and for some only minor if at all. There can be a very small but powerful "meditator committee" that effectively shuts down every other part of mind but itself. This "meditator" observes cessation, he is happy and his belief in himself may actually get reinforced, but the "actor" remains just the same.

The more separated our beings are, the more different committees there are, the more unification we need for cessation to produce real changes.

Hmm, I've had thoughts along these lines when trying to understand why that shift may be more significant for some than others. Is this right out of Culadasa's new book then?

It's one piece of the puzzle which has been leading me to view waking up and growing up as synergistic rather than
1) simply overlapping (i.e., higher levels of standard development become awakening as is somewhat implied by Cook-Greuter's work the last time I looked at her paper anyway) or
2) totally independent (a view that I associate with MCTB, more or less).

It seems to me that developing a more coherent inner world (one in which all the subsystems of personality have conscious relationships with each other rather than being isolated) results in more profound energetic/perceptual shifts from meditation, and these shifts also make it easier to develop inner coherence (and outer coherence in relationships) because the meditative shifts tend to produce greater tolerance for ambiguity and appreciation of complexity which makes it easier for these subsystems to get to know each other.

An important caveat to this is that meditative baseline shifts also in my experience, through rendering our mode of experiencing more fluid, grant access to pseudo-stable transpersonal states which can become hide-outs where we avoid inter and intra personal relational work (spiritual bypassing). Interestingly, I'm not sure that there is an analogy here with 'growing up' as it seems to me that the trajectory of growing up leads to greater tolerance for ambiguity, deeper appreciation of the way that things exceed our ability to map them, and thus growing up tends to tilt the system more in a direction of waking up. In other words, while I see how waking up could be detrimental to growing up because of the increased capacity for lovely hide-outs (spiritual bypassing) the converse seems to be not the case-- the more grown up, the easier it should be to wake up and the more easily waking up can be generalized. <--- that's my intuition anyhow.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 12:42 #101325

Egor Azanov wrote:
Yes, Michael, with pleasure.

There are pyramid-like hierarchies. For simplicity, let's say there's one thing on the top layer, three things on the second and ten on the third.

The connections are from one layer to another, there are no if any connections that jump two or more layers.

A real-life example would be an army. One commander in chief, several generals, more colonels and a lot of soldiers.

A forest-like hierarchy however, does not have a well-defined top. Or, better, there's no single entity on top of it. We can imagine it as relations between many pyramid-like hierarchies some of them are upside down. Also, there are many connections between different layers.

Decisions in pyramid-like hierarchies are usually made at the top and spread down to the bottom layers which have little say in making a choice.

Decisions in forest-like hierarchies are made by an emergent consensus. For the specific decision a specific part of the forest will play the role of the top entity. This part can still be a single entity, it can be a pyramid-like hierarchy embedded in the forest or it can be a very complex set of relations between entities.

Still, we can roughly define some layers in the forest. Taking some complex living organism as an example we have several layers: molecules and chemical reactions, cells, organs, feelings and thought processes. We can't exactly say that a thought is on top of it and controls everything else. A single thought or a single cell may die and an organism may not even notice it. A powerful thought (like intention to meditate each day) can change the whole forest. Damage on the layer of organs may kill the organism. Bad nutrition causes persistent damage on the level of cells, may cause heavy damage to organs, leading to bad thoughts that cause more bad nutrition.

A thought is not a thing in itself, but an emergent consensus from a forest-like hierarchy that includes molecules, cells, organs, feelings, other thoughts, relationships between all them and the environment.

At different moments different parts of the forest form this consensus. And we feel like different selves. Which, of course, we are.
Thanks, Egor. That's very helpful. I've been looking for a graphic example of a forest-like hierarchy, with no success. If you could provide a reference to a graphic example, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 13:02 #101327

image.jpeg


A schema of metabolism in a simple cell. Copied by my amazing wife Katia from the book The Systems View of Life

You can also google "graph theory forest"
Last Edit: 19 Nov 2015 13:03 by Egor Azanov.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kenneth Folk

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 13:23 #101329

Jake St. Onge wrote:
Hmm, I've had thoughts along these lines when trying to understand why that shift may be more significant for some than others. Is this right out of Culadasa's new book then?

Yes, right from the book. I believe, I've not introduced any new words/concepts in my interpretation.
It's one piece of the puzzle which has been leading me to view waking up and growing up as synergistic rather than
1) simply overlapping (i.e., higher levels of standard development become awakening as is somewhat implied by Cook-Greuter's work the last time I looked at her paper anyway) or
2) totally independent (a view that I associate with MCTB, more or less).

Yes! I feel they interrelate in a non-linear way. We are working with Katia on the model that tries to catch this relationship. It feels like we are very close to some pattern that can explain a lot of "anomalies" (and "normalities" too).

I'll present our findings here in a few days.
It seems to me that developing a more coherent inner world (one in which all the subsystems of personality have conscious relationships with each other rather than being isolated) results in more profound energetic/perceptual shifts from meditation, and these shifts also make it easier to develop inner coherence (and outer coherence in relationships) because the meditative shifts tend to produce greater tolerance for ambiguity and appreciation of complexity which makes it easier for these subsystems to get to know each other.

Today in a conversation with a friend I've used a metaphor of giving every sub-mind a voice in the executive committee. Integrating shadow parts in 3-2-1 process literally means just that: (3) finding the hidden sub-minds by objectifying sensations, feelings and thoughts (2) asking the identified sub-mind "what do you need? how do you feel?" (1) inviting it into the executive committee, so it from now on will be active participant in the decision processes, not some subtle "power behind a throne".
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kenneth Folk

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 13:25 #101330

Thanks very much. That's a great help! :)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kenneth Folk

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 17:43 #101332

Egor Azanov wrote:
More on the point why we need comprehensive maps.

At each moment we operate as a complex multiplicity of sub-beings, organized in a forest-like hierarchies. Each sub-being can be mapped to the point on this four-dimensional matrix.
Egor - it's not clear to me which four-dimensional matrix you're referring to. Can you please explain?

Thanks.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 19 Nov 2015 23:50 #101333

Scratch that, Michael. Four (six) dimensional matrix was a work in progress. We've found a simpler universal pattern that transcends and includes all Integral maps. It also has a very simple visualization. We'll present it here in just a few days.

I've described this pattern to a friend yesterday and it made a lot of sense to him (he's not familiar with any Integral maps and has a natural Individualistic in Cook-Greuter terms rejection of hierarchies).

Working title "Entangled Spirals".
Last Edit: 20 Nov 2015 00:37 by Egor Azanov.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 20 Nov 2015 05:36 #101335

Neat. Looking forward to it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Brainstorming a new model of development 20 Nov 2015 09:05 #101340

Egor Azanov wrote:
Scratch that, Michael. Four (six) dimensional matrix was a work in progress. We've found a simpler universal pattern that transcends and includes all Integral maps. It also has a very simple visualization. We'll present it here in just a few days.

I've described this pattern to a friend yesterday and it made a lot of sense to him (he's not familiar with any Integral maps and has a natural Individualistic in Cook-Greuter terms rejection of hierarchies).

Working title "Entangled Spirals".

Thanks Egor. That sounds intriguing. Can't wait. :)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Moderators: Kenneth Folk
Time to create page: 0.200 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum