Symposium for Integrative Spirituality Wrap-Up
Posted on May 16th, 2007
by 
Daate
Daate
I was honored to read the posts of the brilliant contributors to Julian’s recent symposium. I for one would love to see their published anthology on integral perspectives!
While I don’t profess to have anywhere near such an in-depth understanding of integral theory (anyone reading the symposium without knowledge of spiral dynamics would have thought we were grading a finger-painting class, and I confess I felt myself going cross-eyed at times) I noticed some interesting reactions to the symposium, both in myself and others.
I don’t think it’s possible to make much sense without giving some of my personal background first. I have personal experience with trauma, as well as firsthand experience with the popular New-Age philosophy that passes for spirituality nowadays. In my journey of healing from this trauma, I’ve had to shed much of what was deemed “spiritual” around me, and much of what I considered “spiritual” in me. It was more like I was hosting a squad of really mean internal policemen who were trying to get me to adhere to a philosophy which kept me disconnected from the richness of my genuine inner life. Steve Pavlina’s words on the Tech shooting were once, believe it or not, something I would have beaten myself up for not believing.
I was never very good at this kind of “spirituality,” however (thank goodness.) Yet, shedding it, I felt lost and alone. I couldn’t find a version of spirituality that supported the deep connection to my own emotions that healing from trauma requires. I briefly resigned myself to the fact that the kind of spirituality I needed simply didn’t exist. The closest thing I found were somatic psychologies, which integrated both ecstatic bodily energetic states and the importance of a full range of emotion. An embodied spirituality—literally, a spirituality that valued the human body—seemed the sanest one I could find.
Largely because of these experiences, and because I’m training as a Somatic Experiencing Practitioner, I have somewhat of a working understanding of what keeps people defended, of why people hold so desperately to concepts of “spirituality” that don’t serve them. People, in my experience, are not trying to be idiots. They’re trying to survive.
Note I just realized I should make: *I realize my perspective primarily addresses people who have been traumatized and are employing their spirituality as a defense, but it can also apply to people who are simply looking to transition to an integral spirituality.*
I’m primarily interested in how one would practically apply theory. I was glad to that this was one of the very important issues the bloggers addressed: How do you sanely model a comprehensive, mature spirituality without being a crusader, without regressing to being condescending? And, the trick is, how do you still come across clearly enough in your position so that your ideas are not easily translated into New-Age mush and become misused?
Traumatized people in need of healing work are often drawn to a version of “magical thinking spirituality” because it is a perfect vehicle in which to continue beating themselves up for their shortcomings as human beings.People who are wed to the idea of themselves as "on a spiritual path," even if they are on an unhealthy one, need a safe replacement for their old spiritual beliefs which they can trust, one that is inclusive of their current stage of development as well as (gently) encouraging a new one. So the question is: how do we connect people to themselves? How do we present a working model of spirituality that is loving, compassionate, but that challenges people to confront the Shadow? How do we help people understand that they have the strength to do so? How do we present the Shadow as a spiritual component to healing, the greatest one we have? I believe that fear of the Shadow is the only reason people engage in the type of magical thinking that keeps true growth at bay. It is a defense I understand very well and have seen very often around me and in me.
I know it might be in the nature of some claiming to be “integral thinkers” to grow impatient and argue that as second-tier thinkers, there is an elevated ability to address one another frankly, to have the capacity to hear un-watered-down criticism, and to honestly wrestle with one’s own weaknesses. While this is certainly true, I also don’t believe that if a person lacks the capacity to do this with equal facility, they are simply folk that can’t be reached. I wouldn’t want to see the integral community assuming that its wisdom is “pearls before swine” to the rest of the world. In some cases it’s true, but I also believe there are plenty of people out there who are ready to transition to a more grounded spirituality, but who need loving, clear guidance, and for whom the method of approach really matters. I appreciated that the bloggers were taking this issue into serious consideration.
Harsh language does the opposite of its intent—it turns people away, no matter how right the writer thinks he/she is. Or knows he/she is. Because remember, not all turning away from writing which feels condescending to the reader is simply because the reader is moronic and way lower on the color chart than the rest of us. Some of the readers’ turning away can be healthy—if the reader senses that there is no compassionate model in place, no safe zone to relinquish defenses, no real help and guidance offered—a reader, no matter how ignorant, is perfectly in the right to turn away from brazen criticism of where they stand.
All in all, I really loved and am grateful for the posts in the symposium. I share much of the bloggers’ points of view, admired their intellectual facility and their willingness to show vulnerability, and appreciated any time that the posters showed a compassionate understanding of how people work. I deeply admire when these eloquent voices challenge people to pursue building their cognitive strengths while grounded in love.
Access: Public
Dear Daate,
a very beautiful comment in which I can feel a beating heart. Yes, I too feel that so called 2nd tier thinkers (and we don't even know if there is really such a thing as 2nd tier; the guys and girls over at spiraldynamcs.org don't seem to think so, at least not in the sense that it is mostly being used in “Wilberian integral circles” ) much overrate “clear truths” about magical thinking etc.
And I'm not saying, as you don't, that it cannot be devestating. Magical thinking of the kind that, for instance, the neo-cons use (the war in Irak and the 600.000 dead bear terrible witness to this).
“Higher thinking” in view is only really “higher” if it doesn't look down on those who are troubled but looks them straight in the eye, feels with them - willing to shed tears, even - and takes it from there. I find much of that in what you write, and I'm happy for this to be so.
Love,
Mushin
Daate!
Beautiful share.
I appreciate your perpective and also share many of the same questions as you do when it comes to encouraging the traumatized to feel safe enough to face their shadows…
i am not so sure that this last symposium was trying to accomplish that as so much as toss back and forth philosophical perspectives…which they did with much success…my brain hurts and could use a vacation…
I have a feeling that the next syposium that julian is proposing about integrating/grounding kundalini/altered state experiences might address that a bit more…
much love sista…S.
salima, thanks so much for this great summary (and first blog post…yea!!!). very thoughtful and thorough. loved talking with you yesterday! how wonderful to finally meet you.
:)
big love,
d
yes, i am no longer a blog virgin…..:)
thanks fellas…..i think this applies (albeit, maybe less so) even to “regular” people trying to transition to integral…..
and yes, i'd like to see more thoughts on practical application. great hopes for the next symposium!
:)
Thank you, Salima, for these moving and inspiring reflections. I have not experienced personal trauma, but I have experienced great loss – and this is what sparked my initial spiritual journey. I also relate to your story of shedding your spiritual skin and feeling adrift, not knowing if there is anything out there that makes sense. That has happened to me on more than one occasion.
I really appreciate a number of the points that you made. One – recognizing that people are often simply trying to protect themselves and survive when they make their spiritual choices; that, at some level, even if unskillfully, they are trying to attend to a wound or treat a deep-seated fear. Two – the importance of presenting the Shadow, not as something to fear or feel guilty about having, but as an important aid on the path of spiritual healing and transformation (which may NOT be unearthed or addressed by many traditional meditation practices). And three – your following comments:
DAATE: “I know it might be in the nature of some claiming to be 'integral thinkers' to grow impatient and argue that as second-tier thinkers, there is an elevated ability to address one another frankly, to have the capacity to hear un-watered-down criticism, and to honestly wrestle with one's own weaknesses. While this is certainly true, I also don't believe that if a person lacks the capacity to do this with equal facility, they are simply folk that can't be reached. I wouldn't want to see the integral community assuming that its wisdom is 'pearls before swine' to the rest of the world. In some cases it's true, but I also believe there are plenty of people out there who are ready to transition to a more grounded spirituality, but who need loving, clear guidance, and for whom the method of approach really matters. I appreciated that the bloggers were taking this issue into serious consideration. Harsh language does the opposite of its intent-it turns people away, no matter how right the writer thinks he/she is. Or knows he/she is. Because remember, not all turning away from writing which feels condescending to the reader is simply because the reader is moronic and way lower on the color chart than the rest of us. Some of the readers' turning away can be healthy-if the reader senses that there is no compassionate model in place, no safe zone to relinquish defenses, no real help and guidance offered-a reader, no matter how ignorant, is perfectly in the right to turn away from brazen criticism of where they stand.”
Well said. I think criticisms can be boldly stated, but it depends on the context. And if there is no evidence of compassion or respect for others' experience in the shrill voice of the critic – even if s/he is right about that issue – then that is a real turn-off and ultimately self-defeating.
Best wishes,
Balder
thanks for your personal share balder…..yes, our spiritual trekking is often catalized by major life changes….
and as always, thanks for your eloquent words:)
very good piece salima - thanks for contributing!
Daate,
Thanks for sharing your story and your perspective on trauma, it's very helpful to see where you are coming from. There's a lot of good stuff here!
One thing that jumped out at me was this:
a safe replacement for their old spiritual beliefs which they can trust… no safe zone to relinquish defenses
I don't have any personal experience with trauma, so probably doesn't apply in those cases, but for me, the defenses are raised specifically to create safety. In a safe zone, the defenses are dormant, so we don't get a good look at them, but outside of a safe zone, the defenses are activated, so then I can do self-inquiry and ask, “What is it about this situation that makes me want to protect myself?” This is the method I use on myself, where I use intellectual or theoretical inquiry to get some idea of what is true or what is good, and then look for resistance to going in that direction – that often uncovers latent fears, anger, sadness, disappointment, etc., that I can work with. Being non-judgmental with yourself is vital of course, because sometimes there's a tendency to swing from avoidance to condemnation and self-loathing, maybe because we believe that treating ourself badly is virtuous? My rule is to never treat myself worse than my closest friend, and I think that's a moral injunction. We all follow certain rules about how to treat others with politeness, respect and dignity, but often we exempt ourselves from that circle of care, and treat ourselves in a way that we wouldn't accept if it was directed at another person. So, I think we can realize that radical self-acceptance is not only not selfish and self-indulgent, its a deeply moral position.
Going back to the idea of safety, in your personal journey, it sounds like you stepped away from safety and into darkness. So often, accepting your vulnerability is what helps you to grow. In healing from trauma, we have to regain our confidence that we can protect ourselves from pain, but once we've done that, there's a different kind of growth that requires us to re-open to pain. For me, psychological healing from trauma means shedding harmful defenses and creating healthy defenses (healthy boundaries, for example), but spiritual growth means shedding defenses altogether (no boundaries, pure interdependence), and I have some concerns about whether some spiritual practices might be harmful if applied to people seeking healing from trauma.
I think you are right that some readers are doing the healthy thing by turning away from some of these dialogs, but I think that's not always a sign that something is wrong, while at the same time acknowledging that there's no reason for rudeness and condescension. I've always felt that the integral project is less about helping people directly, and more about helping the helpers – they need support too, after all.
hi teacup,
thanks so much for your keen observations and your understanding of a subject which is purely abstract to so many. I am actually very touched.
thank you also for stressing the need to be gentle with ourselves—would that everyone suffering from trauma could hear that! you are right in that it is self-defeating to turn to self-condemnation in place of denial that anything is wrong in the first place; and i also understand your caution about encouraging a spiritual path in people who already have a tendency toward such self-condemnation. this is, in fact, I believe, much of julian's concern regarding immature spirituality that wounded people often turn to—and it's one of my central concerns as well. yes, it is vital to develop a spirituality that fosters self-forgiveness and accountability at the same time.
you are right in that i often, in my own path, stepped into darkness. actually it feels more as though i have been in the darkness for most of my life and have recently begun stepping out of it, learning to be gently accountable and curious about my Shadow, rather than giving my own internal negative introjects free license to go to town every time i believe i have not lived up to my own standard of myself.
i like your comments about your process of self-inquiry. with the physiological nature of the trauma that I personally (and that the clients i will eventually see, once i'm certified) have been through, the process of healing is unique and often appears contradictory. this process is what first got me interested in somatic psychology to begin with. it goes something like this: a person feels so terrorized within their own bodies (and this is something very difficult to imagine, but it is literally like living in a war zone within yourself) that beginning to understand that we are in fact able to protect ourselves is rather slow in coming. it does come—but not, in my experience, with cognitive work alone. somatic experiencing is a wonderful way (I think) to build those resources within the body of a person who is traumatized. once the person is sufficiently resourced, they can begin the process of self-inquiry you outlined so clearly. when they understand that they have the capacity to hold their own emotions, and therefore the beauty of their own vulnerability, they can do what you spoke of—re-open to themselves, to pain, to life—because they will no longer become physiologically overwhelmed if they do so.
thank you for mentioning vulnerability. peter levine talks about the reality that a person who has been traumatized wakes up to once they begin healing—a world that is awake and alive, and in which a person no longer has to remain rigid with the anticipation of an attack. it is a world where it's safe to feel the spectrum of emotions again. one of the most incredible, awe-inspiring, glorious things for me is to finally recognize the power of my own vulnerability, to be proud of it and to know that it is one of my greatest strengths—the tendency to feel everything. i was ashamed of this for a long time and considered it a weakness (this super-sensitivity, in an unhealed traumatized person, turns into pathological hypervigilance and can feel a bit like a curse.) i've discovered that in being grateful for my vulnerability, i can be more transparent to myself and not terrified of doing Shadow work. i think defenses against the Shadow are far more insidious and scary than the shadow itself, and i can't stress self-forgiveness enough.
in spiritual lingo the concept of “no boundaries” is indeed very confusing to traumatized people. i have yet to unearth a helpful linguistic definition which could elucidate to a traumatized person what this really means. with traumatized people—especially those who have been further indoctrinated with an immature belief system of some kind, have to take baby steps in this area. it's almost like, “no, no, you DON'T have to walk over the hot coals, you have a right to walk AROUND them. and it doesn't mean you're a terrible, weak, unspiritual person if you do.” this is a revelation of sorts for many. so you are right, some spiritual practices could bring harm if incorrectly or prematurely applied—others, like yoga, usually help—but then, like i said above, the process of healing itself is a powerful vehicle of self-inquiry.
i will remember your rule about treating yourself as well as your closest friend (or at least, never treating yourself worse.) this is the kind of healthy autonomy, common sense and self-acceptance i am working toward.
much thanks,
salima
hey sista…i wanted to comment on the “no boundaries”…i personally see this as ideal, but until i reach a point where i meet this ideal spiritually or whatnot, i keep boundaries, and keep constant dialogue with myself about them…i think it all comes down to “know thyself”…to hold compassionate space for myself does sometimes involve keeping some of the world out until i can handle the experience of a certain expression of vulnerability…and to not feel “less then” at the times i cannot…for in this, i also hold understanding that if i work with lovingkindness towards myself, that eventually i will be able to navigate this world more comfortable to allow experiences with “no bounderies”…just my two cents…love and grace…S.
hey hon….thanks for your input!
yeah, the issue of “no boundaries” when it comes to trauma in particular (and in the world of spiritual practice) is one of the trickiest. the all-loving, ever-present and fluid exchange of energy with the world which spiritual belief systems hail as the ultimate goal—and rightly so, i believe—can only be achieved in a person once they feel sufficiently safe within their bodies. it's like you can't rely solely on the intuitive capacities of chakras 5, 6 and 7 if 1, 2 and 3—where your primal sense of belonging and safety lie—are shot to shit….so yes, for someone with trauma it is not so much “keeping the world out” as it is learning to physiologically mediate sensory input AT ALL. when this mechanism is underdeveloped in a person, they have to start at square one in building a sense of being a person separate from others, as basic as this sounds—of not fusing with their environment to the point of pathology.
thanks for mentioning lovingkindness and your process of monitoring what you choose to “let in” and what, in certain moments, is better to discard….i would love to hear more about this if you feel up to sharing, particularly because i know you've had some wonderful energetic shifts which must at times be tough to integrate…
i have an active visual pertaining to a healthy sense of boundary—which is having the capacity to allow external input to swirl around in you as something to meditate upon and something to honor, a self-forgiving observation of defenses which arise, and a sense of when these defenses serve. if they serve, the same energy which was at one point, when it was purely fear-based, defensive—is sublimated to become a healthy sense of assertiveness in remaining clear in oneself while lovingly and curiously honoring another's perspective. it also allows us the vulnerability to feel love and pain and the ability to be humbled without being threatened.
as a fellow artist i'll share that i really do have visuals for all of this—it amazes me how the same self-empowering energy tries to find expression and will find a way to show up by hook or by crook, and when it encounters blockages it squeezes out sideways….such as, when a person feels they have no right to set a boundary, we are likely to run into a fear so powerful they are apt to invest like crazy in “keeping the world out.” (this is one of the only reasons I like the enneagram, by the way; my perspective is that it delineates what the same energies within certain personality types will do, depending on how many blockages these innate energies encounter.)
have you ever taken the enneagram? or myers briggs, while i'm at it?
re-read that last blog entry and realized i keep changing from first person to third person….so if it's driving anyone nuts i apologize……:)
This reminds me of something from Pema Chodron that I thought was fascinating:
The first noble truth of the Buddha is that people experience dukka, a feeling of dissatisfaction or suffering…only in the West is this dissatisfaction articulated as “Something is wrong with me.” It seems that thinking of oneself as flawed is more a Western phenomenon than a universal one.
As Westerners, we try so hard to free ourselves from something that no-one can ever really escape from, and we feel lonely and ashamed because of it, like we're the only ones.
She's one of my favorite teachers. Here's another essay entitled Cultivating Unconditional Friendliness To Oneself.
hi mike,
this is a beautiful, beautiful article. i've only read the first one so far. it's already helped me, and i plan to use it in my practice, especially for clients attracted to an active spiritual practice. it's also given me the incentive to blog something i recently wrote for myself concerning mortality.
her process is actually very similar to the one i practice myself—the path of non-resistance, so to speak. mine might have more somatic elements in it, but it's otherwise pretty much the same.
it's great to hear this from a buddhist teacher too. i see a lot of the mistaken notion that buddhism is less about self-acceptance and more about cleaving out “negative action” to become “right,” till it becomes this crazy form of westernized behavior modification.
i don't know where our unforgiving self-concept came from in the west…..is it primarily the judeo-christian tradition, do you think? it is fascinating to imagine a life in which the eye being turned inward does not automatically mean self-criticism or self-congratulations, and where yearning and restlessness and triumph are not necessarily attributed to the pitfalls an individual encounters while scaling the mountain of life. i think in the east they must be more about being among and an extension of the wild unpredictable forces of life itself.
Salima,
I'm glad that you found those articles as helpful as I did :)
I think our unforgiving self-concept is part of our individualistic culture, which is really part of our Greek philosophical heritage than the Judeo-Christian part. If you come from a highly communal, conformist culture like the Dalai Lama, self-esteem and self-worth issues don't come up.
Conformity is kind of a bad word in the West, and we have a really twisted and paradoxical relationship to it. We tell teenagers, “Be yourself, and people will like you.” You want to fit in with the group, but you can't, because wanting that means you don't fit in, so just be an individual. The group will reject you if they think you care about being rejected, so pretend you don't care. If you want to be cool, don't look like you are trying to be cool. The message that's being sent is so contradictory and dishonest, its impossible to win. In conformist cultures, its more straight-forward, so self-esteem is easy – if you do what you are told, people will accept you. But communal, conformist cultures often engage in brutal oppression of those that don't fit in, which is why the West has tried to rid itself of them, but you can still find it in Mormon churches in Utah and Baptist churches in the South.
In an individualistic culture, you can only really get validation once your proven yourself worthy through some extraordinary skill or contribution. Some people have tried to fix this by saying that, yes, we're all individuals, and only unique, talented, extraordinary and special individuals are good, but really, when you think about it, isn't everyone unique and special? Its a short-term fix which ultimately worsens the problem, and also makes people extremely narcissistic and self-centered. I think most of the attempts to include a communal or feminine perspective end up unconsciously importing individualistic, male assumptions. For example, there's a belief that abstract discussion is masculine, sharing personal stories is feminine, which has some truth to it. Personal stories are probably more feminine than abstractions, but its still pretty individualistic, because its relating my personal, unique, distinctive, disconnected experience. Even an innocent question like “Tell me about yourself” is an invitation to individualistic communication, and in really communal cultures, it can be threatening. But in the West, we all have a pre-written script about what to say to that question. My sense is that in communal cultures, they ask questions like, “Tell me about your family or your community or your country.” Of course, people in the West talk about their families, but if you talk about your kids, you talk about how cute they are or this really funny thing they did the other day, and if you talk about your spouse, its about the uniquely romantic way you met or he proposed or something. “What do you love about him/her?” That sort of thing. We place a huge amount of importance on personal tastes, questions like “What's your favorite color?”
We drum this into people from birth, so changing it is hard. The solutions that are usually suggested seem counter-productive, since they assume that the problem is not individualism, but that we aren't good enough at it, so let's help people realize their unique individuality. But if the best thing about me is that I'm different, then I accept myself as good as long as I maintain that distance and disconnection from others. This might partly explain why women tend to have more self-esteem problems than men, because men find it easier to maintain that distance. I think recognizing the alienation that is caused by individuality is a good first step.
salima…no ennegramming or myers brig…i have heard of the ennegram and was told i was probably a nine..but i have no idea what that means…would love to know more…
i have yet to read the articles mr t posted and will have to read them later, but i am a bit familiar with pema and love everything i have read of hers so far…
i do love what you say above mr t…about how we have certain concepts and constructs pertaining to our individuality that are hard to dissolve the boudaries around…but i really appreciate your linking of individuality and alienation…it has been a delicate dance for me to maintain a sense of self yet feel connected to others…i suppose it is what the integration process is all about…but i must say, i always hated the “whats your favorite color” question…maybe thats why…
love and grace…S.
enneagram:
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/dis_sample_36.asp
myers briggs:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
short, quick versions of both. my favorite is myers briggs.
i once read balder say something about being a “nine,” and i assumed he was talking about the enneagram. “nines” are loving peacemakers who strive for harmony, sometimes at the expense of “rocking the boat,” even if it's a boat that needs to be rocked. the neat and fascinating thing about the enneagram is its emphasis on the fact that there can be unhealthy, average and healthy versions of each personality type.
that's interesting mike, i didn't realize our greek philosophical heritage is primarily what geared the west in this direction. i hear what you're saying about inducing shame in people for wanting acceptance, something so basic and healthy. i know it's what accounts for so much of the alienation teenagers feel—they are not as encouraged to find a group to which they belong as they are to “pick up their chins” and suffer the isolation that is marketed all around as the natural consequence of being unique. clarissa estes stresses the “ugly duckling” archetype here—that the pain of isolation and developing a thicker skin against ridicule is only half the battle—but the rest is finding the other swans, so to speak, the family to which we truly belong—thus rounding out the personal journey to include acceptance as the breeding ground for true thriving.
it's a fine line between a tribal culture that has an investment in keeping people from developing personally, and a culture that does not value interconnectedness. i have heard some new yorkers (i stress “some,” because those who love the city for other reasons would kill me) say that the sheer mass of people in the city is what lends a psychological buffer against feeling isolated, which i think is a glaring symptom of what we're talking about. i have always wondered how people can feel alone in a place like new york, but it is easier than i thought. i wonder what it is like in tokyo?
and S—
yes, my goodness, i hear you. which woman doesn't struggle with maintaining a sense of self while remaining connected to others? how much literature has been devoted to this issue—all the way from shows like sex and the city to carol gilligan's work? how do we honor our natural empathy and desire to connect, and deal with the fear of possibly disappointing people if we do what's right for us? back to myers briggs—that's actually a common struggle for NF's (intuitive feelers, which i'm guessing you are, sa'rah.) i am too. i have always admired the natural autonomy that NT's (intuitive thinkers) have. (also—i speak about the terms loosely, bear in mind. i think we all have a bit of everything in us.)
i feel blessed to have worked in montessori schools, the philosophical premise of which is to encourage self-directedness and accountability, as well as problem-solving through collaboration. more than any other children i have known, those kids knew how to cooperate, all while taking responsibility for their own actions and retaining a sense of their unique personal development. as a result, the kids weren't as competitive and insecure as other children. i suppose that is how we foster autonomy and empathy at the same time.
so, as it turns out, i am a 2 closely followed by a 7 and 9…but that was the free test…interesting stuff…and the myers-briggs an INFP…these type of tests are quite interesting…thnaks for the leads…i will check more into them later…
and i love the montessori schools!…i truely hope that this educational model catches on…and fast!
i'm an INFP as well…..:) and keep testing 1 on the enneagram, but have tested 2 before.