Mindstructures

Beneath the World of Logic

Annemieke — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:05:24 +0000

In my previous post, The meaning of values, I differentiated between 3 types of values and I wanted to see how they relate to the basic model that I use on this blog.

But because I already was trying to make my point about the relation between the meaning of life and the meaning of values, the post was getting a bit cluttered and I lost my view on that.

Now here, in this post, I want to see how they fit into that model. The 3 types of values from the previous post are the following:

The cultural background that makes values look like facts
Experiences that make certain values very personal
The amounts of time you had to defend those values

So I will go over each one of them to see where they can be placed in that model. The model that is a combination of the zodiac and the quadrants from integral theory.

Beneath the world of matter and logic

I will place each one of them at the transition from one phase of life into another. A transition that is not actually visible and plays its role beneath the world of matter and logic.

The matter and logic that I call in the context of this blog structure. Structure as opposed to potential.

The concept of potential is what I use here for a place that can hold the different types of values.

Three types that are placed at the three essential transitions in life. From universal into primordial, from primordial into individual, from individual into universal. And finally again from universal into primordial, where a new cycle starts.

The primordial can be seen as the cultural background of where a child is born. And what is called universal is the world as a whole at a certain moment in time.

And in between is the development of the individual.

It is a cycle that is constantly repeating itself. On all kind of levels. But it is a cycle in the form of a spiral. Every time it starts with the beginning again but on another level.

The cultural background that makes values look like facts

The first set of values can not so much be called values. It has not much to do with the individual, not even with the family. It is the cultural background a person is born in.

It is what I call here, the transition from the universal phase into the primordial phase. The universal phase is culture that is built over time. Our western culture has certain values that most people will agree upon.

But those values are not the same as they where 400 years ago, not even the same as 40 years ago. They evolve over time and are defined by events and laws.

Because of the effects that peoples actions have on others, there have to be certain rules to let people live together in relative peace. Some might call them values, others laws. And some might just call them common sense.

But because they are common sense to us, does not mean they are common sense to everyone. Other cultures have other laws and values that they see as common sense. But what we see as offensive or rude or just plain wrong.

Experiences that make certain values very personal

The second set of values are those that are very personal. Those experiences in our youth that have a huge impact. Where something happens that shapes our vision of the world.

Growing up in a family that is violent gives you a different perspective of the world than growing up in a family that is loving and caring, even in the same society with the same cultural background of values. Here also, you might not be aware that they are actually values.

It just is what it is.

But in this transition from primordial into individual, the person has to start an individual life. Independent of his family and cultural background.

To actually start with this and actually make decisions, you need a set of values. You need a context to know what to do and what to avoid.

In order to live an authentic life and build upon your own values, you have to choose. Every day you have to make decisions. And if there were no guidelines that you can more or less hold on to, it would be almost impossible to choose.

At the start that set of guidelines might not be so very strict. But the further you go, the more it becomes clear that they are not the same as those of others. In many cases it is not that obvious, just a minor disagreement. But as time goes by, your own set of guidelines increases.

You said ‘no’ to something and ‘yes’ to something else. And because you acted in some way, the next time it is easier to go that way.

You start to build a personality, an identity, an ego. Or like in business, you build a brand. Something others will recognise and relate to (or not). Something that provides room for major improvement and development in a certain direction.

Some of the values will be removed because they get in the way of your own development.

But some of them get stronger, much stronger. Especially those that are a combination of cultural background and personal experience that are used to build your personal identity on.

And the stronger the personal identity gets, the stronger you have to defend the values the identity is actually based upon. And these become the third set of values.

The amounts of time you had to defend those values

The third set of values are a combination of unconscious values (cultural background and personal values) and conscious values (chosen to build our identity) which together make you who you are.

Your personality that is unique to you, that what sets you apart from all the others. It is how you want to be known. It is how others will easy recognise you. It is where you are proud of. What you achieved in life.

But the more strong that identity is, the more unique, the more successful, the more you might have to defend yourself against attacks. Which might be not that bad, it only improves your skills. The more you have to defend yourself, the more clear it all becomes to yourself.

But the real problems set in if those core values get attacked, those that are the foundation of who you are, that what made you capable of building your identity. And if that happens, your emotional reactions might get very strong. And make those values even stronger. A vicious circle.

Unless you can take a step away and look at it more objective.

Some day the moment has to come to realise your set of values is not universal. Other cultures have other values. Other people have other values. And they all depend on the context.

But that does not mean it was unnecessary to build upon those values. Actually it was very important. It is what the world needs, strong, unique and powerful individuals that are capable of being a success.

Those individuals that shape the future. That provide a cultural background for future generations.

And so we are back again with the beginning. But this time it is a cultural background we were part of. Either conscious or subconscious. But the way we lived according to our own set of values shapes the future. And makes our values common sense to those who are born again in that future.

The Meaning of Values

Annemieke — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:13:28 +0000

These last days my thoughts were mainly focused on values. Why we have them and how we use them.

I wanted to write a blogpost about the meaning of life but could not exactly get my point across.

While I was thinking about what I actually was trying to say, I came across another blogpost that said something that I very much agreed with.

And not only do I agree with it, it also made me more clear how that relates to what I wanted to write about the meaning of life.

It was hidden in a very interesting blogpost called In Defense of the Death Penalty which turned out to be the opposite of what the title suggests.

The part I mean was the following:

If you have a strong opinion on a subject and somebody disagrees with you, then you’ll look for reasons to prove them wrong. You’ll disregard (often unconsciously) contrary evidence and latch onto anything that supports your viewpoint. It’s what we pretty much all do because to do otherwise means we have to accept we were wrong with our initial assessment.

So I think this is very true. And for me it was the essence of that whole post.

We all have opinions and we all have certain values. They might change over time. As we grow older we get to see things different, we meet other people who make us look at things differently and see value in things we did not notice so much before.

But there are exceptions.

There are opinions that do not change. That only become more strong as time goes by. So why is that? And where did that opinion come from in the first place?

To get clear how I see that, I need a general definition of what opinions, beliefs and values are.

Belief – Any cognitive content held as true.

Opinion – Personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Values – Beliefs of a person or social group, a set of emotional rules that people follow to help make the right decisions in life, to decide what is right and wrong, and how to act in various situations.

Strong beliefs (or opinions or values)

Now why do some beliefs become strong beliefs? And why can one strong belief be opposed to another, also strong belief?

I think it all starts with why we have beliefs in the first place. We need them to make a decision on how to act. Every action needs a decision between choices.

And as a child we learn the values of our cultural background. They make it relatively easy to know what is the right thing to do and what is wrong. But it might have nothing to do with the values of another cultural background. So there can already be a huge difference. What is a crime in one culture, might be day to day practise in another.

But apart from that, there are differences that have to do with personal experiences.

Those values are a very important aspect of our life. If someone would have no opinions, no values and no belief at all, it would be very difficult to get through the day. You would have no idea what to do and what to choose from a sea of possibilities.

So having values is a good thing. But what about strong beliefs? Is that necessary?

Well, actually I think it is.

My personal vision on that is, that it might even be what others would call the meaning of life. I think those strong beliefs make us who we are.

But what exactly makes a value a strong belief? I think it is a combination of three factors.

1. The cultural background that makes certain values more or less facts.

2. Experiences that make certain values very personal.

3. The amounts of time you had to defend those values.

The meaning of life

But what does that have to do with the meaning of life? I think it has everything to do with the meaning of life. But there is one other essential factor.

And that is time.

Time that makes a process possible. A process to build a personality with strong values. With beliefs that are worth defending. Choosing a direction and stick with it to make it to a success. Challenge the cultural background and make decisions more on personal experiences. Keep what works and improve it. Defend your decisions if they are attacked.

I think all that is the first part of what can be called the meaning of life. Become a personality, improve yourself over time and defend yourself if necessary.

But there is a second part.

And that second part is just as important as the first one. It is where you have to realise that your values are not universal. They always depend on the context. And as important as they are to become a strong and independent individual, there has to be a time to realise it is all relative.

But here is where time comes in. If the realisation is there to soon, it might be harmful for the building process of yourself. And make you paralysed, unfocused and directionless. So a strong belief in your own values is a very important part of all that. Even more, the stronger it is, the more powerful the realisation of a world beyond can be, when the moment is there.

So I was going to write a post called ‘the meaning of life in 3 steps’, but it might take some time to get that into better wording. So far I leave it at the meaning of values. That is to say, my strong opinion on that.

Creative Development

Annemieke — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:52:59 +0000

One word that can describe the first sign of the individual part of the zodiac is creativity.

There are many more words that can be used for that part.

Expression, selfcentred, arrogant, artistic, honorable, selfassured, ego, confident, pride, attention, authentic.

But in this blogpost I want to focuss on the word creativity. Creativity as a developmental process.

I want to translate the 12 signs in relation to creativity. Each of them is just an example, as there are many more ways to view that part of creativity.

For the first one I used ‘dancing’ but I also could have used ‘martial art‘. And for the second one I could use ’sculpture’ instead of ‘painting’.

And although ‘dancing’ is the first phase of the whole development, it does not mean it is a lower artform.

Dancing itself has that same development. From impulsive dancing (1) to expressive dancing (5) to constructive dancing (10) and so on.

1. Creative Action: Dancing

So I called the first phase of creativity dancing. It is the phase of action, in some way the essense of the first sign of the zodiac. It is activity that is self-motivated, unaffected by others. Vitality. Focused in short bursts. It is what children do at a very young age to express themself.

A more developed form is classical ballet which can be seen as constructive dancing. But dancing in itself is a form of creativity that is seen as energetic.

2. Creative Manifestation: Painting

The word I used for the second phase is painting. I used painting because it is one of the most common examples of creativity. This phase is about manifestation. The energy of the first phase gets a form.

In this case the manifestation of creativity. It is an act in itself. Not reaching out to the world outside, because that comes in the next phase, not an impulse like in the previous phase. But a coming together of materials, colours, shaping, all in combination with the desire to create.

3. Creative Interaction: Blogging

This phase is about interacting. Finding a way to communicate. I wanted to use writing here, but writing does not have to be creative. Because it can also be a use of words that have nothing to do with the person writing them. A use of words that are learned and used in a mechanical way.

Writing also might have nothing to do with interacting. Writing a book is a creative process, but not an interactive one.

But then I thought about blogging. Blogging in many cases is a form of self-expression. And it also is a form of interaction. An interaction that is based upon the expression of an individual.

4. Creative Emotion: Drama

This is the phase to play with emotions. A phase where emotions are recognised and cultivated. About finding a creative way to express them.

Again in this phase, drama has that same development. From just impulsive expressing feelings, to cultivate that expression in any artform.

5. Creative Expression: Performance

The word I use for this phase of creativity is performance. I use performance because it is like expressing an expression. More in a theatrical, overacting way. A way of intentionally be in the centre of attention.

It does not have to be an expression of emotions like in the previous phase. And it does not have any function like the next phase. It is just about creation itself. All it needs is an audience to actually be in the centre.

6. Creative Function: Design

Here the creation has to become functional. Done now with the expression of emotions. Done now with the expression just for its own sake. Now is the time to produce and improve.

It is about improving by trying over and over again, to make it better and more functional. And it is about producing something useful. Things we all need, like furniture or clothes or websites.

7. Creative Reflection: Esthetics

This phase I call esthetics. It is about relationship, about culture and beauty. It is the phase where the individual is searching for a way to get feedback.

It is about sending out who you are. Done in a way that is appealing to others. Showing the best you have. Identify yourself with that what you are good at. With that what is characteristic. That what you want to be.

From using make-up and fashion to buying cars, decorate your home, looking for art and design. Finding a way to express who you are and present that in a way that others are attracted to it.

8. Creative Integration: Metamorphosis

Coming in this phase a transformation has to take place. Because at a certain moment there is the realisation there is a part of the self that is unknown.

Or maybe not so much unknown as it is suppressed. Which was a good thing in order to develop a specific, self chosen character. One that is build on talent and skills.

But now the time has come for the individual to take a look at its own reaction to others. And find out why there are such strong reactions at times. To recognise them as its own and integrate them. A process of self-mastery. Of taking controle over the whole self.

9. Creative Vision: Art

The most controversial word to describe a phase, I guess, is art. Art is often used as self-expression. It is also often used for just the artforms that are touchable like paintings and sculptures. The history of art is mainly based on that.

But what makes something art, has also to do with the role it plays in time and culture. So the creation has to be an individual expression to begin with. But one that can be seen in a wider context. Here the universal part comes into play. Where the individual has to reach beyond itself.

But because this is about the creative process, this can be seen as a combination of expression and vision. Which places it beyond creativity. And it also places it beyond just having the abstract vision. It has to be combined to actually be art. Creativity in a certain time and place, in a certain context.

10. Creative Construction: Architecture

This phase of creativity has to do with structures. It is about high goals, achieving something big. About ambition, accomplishments. About responsibility for others. It goes beyond function and skill. It goes beyond vision.

It also goes beyond the individual creation. In most cases others are involved. It is only the supervision that remains as others have to do the actual work. I used architecture because it is a combination of creation and construction.

11. Creative Invention: Avant-garde

Here the essence is that it has to be different from all that existed. Or that what already exists has to be altered or changed. Or even destroyed.

It is about progression. It is not about building and constructions like in the previous phase. It is more like breaking it down, about changing any existing status quo into something never seen before.

But at the same time it is very focussed on seeing everyone as an individual. It is about free-thinking and using unorthodox methods. To come to totally unexpected and new ideas.

12. Creative Imagination: Music

This is the phase that is to describe the hardest of all. The best I can think of here is music. This is the field of myths, of dreams, of the collective unconscious. Of compassion and unity.

And I think music as a form of creative expression is capable of resonating with that field.

The Difference between Integrity and Honesty

Annemieke — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:38:26 +0000

Recently on a forum someone asked for opinons about the difference between integrity and honesty.

I thought that was a really interesting question. I indeed view them different but never thought about why exactly.

Like many other words, those two represent a whole world of meaning. They are used all the time and most of the time, people tend to understand what you mean if you use those words.

But sometimes someone uses the word honesty where another would use the word integrity. Or the other way around.

In the comments on that question there where some very interesting views and although there seems to be overlap, they are certainly not the same.

My view was that there can be honesty without integrity, but no integrity without honesty.

But although integrity needs honesty, it does not mean you always have to be absolutely honest to others.

It just means you have to be absolutely honest to your self.

Being honest to others is many times just giving a personal opinion. And that opinion might just as well have nothing to do with facts.

So I do think integrity needs honesty, but honesty as an inner process. Looking at your own values and act upon them with respect for others.

It got me thinking which are the signs of the zodiac that represent honesty and integrity. Honesty is not so hard to see, as it is a characteristic of aries.

Aries is about action and uncomplicated behaviour. Just act without thinking. Something that is not influenced by others, a pure and, in essence, innocent behaviour.

Integrity is more complicated to place. I have seen it used as a characteristic of leo. But in a way I always found that a bit hard to see.

Leo is also acting that is not influenced by others, but it is different from aries. It is the act of self-expression. Expression in accordance with the persons own unique self. Much more an ego based action.

But as I already tried to write about in the post Ego Development, the ego is not static. It has to grow. And the growth goes through the whole zodiac, from the first impulsive action (aries) to the most compassionate sign (pisces).

And so I thought that ‘integity’ might indeed be a characteristic of leo. But a characteristic of a more developed ego. An ego that looks beyond itself, symbolised by the sign sagittarius.

Sagittarius is about expanding our worldview. Looking beyond our own limited experiences. It is about using our own talents for the benefit of the greater whole.

But that side of sagittarius can only come into existence in the development of the first sign of the individual part of the zodiac, leo.

Because leo is the start of the individual development. The start of disovering the own unique self. That which seperates us from everyone else. Our own creative centre.

As long as that is not discovered, sagittarius might expand our worldview but has no centre to return to. The centre (leo) that rules our actions (aries) for the world as a whole (sagittarius).

Critical about Criticism

Annemieke — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:59:13 +0000

Last week I read a blogpost, Criticism the unwanted mentor, that really got me thinking.

I have that more often of course, but this one did not only make me think, it also made me analyse my own thinking.

The post itself was very interesting but apart from that, it made me want to comment. And I actually did.

Which is not that common. I often feel like commenting but just as often decide not to. There are several reasons for not commenting, but the main reason is that I can not get my opinion into clear wording.

In this case I commented immediately after my reading, and got thinking just later on. Which was more common for me in my off line life, as there I always act or have an opinion before I think.

But when it comes to writing, it takes a lot of time to find the right words. And the result is that I do not post a comment often, just think about it, form an opinion, but do not share it.

Well, anyway this time I did. And after that it got me thinking why that was. I went back to the post to see what I wrote and analysed my reaction.

I think there is a very fine line between criticism, feedback and judging. They all have their place, but I am not so sure criticising and judging another person is of much use as only to get the other defensive.

Personally I think it often says more about the one who is giving it, then the one receiving it.

Feedback is great, but still only if the situation is suitable for that (parents/children, teacher/pupil or if someone asks for it).

If it is about the actions (or lack there of) by others that bother you, the only way to do it (in my very personal opinion) is to say what are the problems you yourself have with that behaviour.

But that does not mean that criticism is not important. I think it really is, but never on a personal level, always purely about ideas. And the only way to criticise those ideas with others, is if you totally respect each other.

Just my view at this moment.

First thing that I noticed was that I did react from another perspective than the post was saying. The overall intention of that post was: ‘seeing the value if you get critisiced’. And my response was in general: ‘never criticise another person’.

The second thing I noticed was that I was splitting hair. I differentiated between criticism, feedback and judgement. So I thought, is it really that different to judge, give feedback or criticise?

But actually I think it is.

I really think the differences are essential. But often one word is used where someone else would mean another. If I read back my reaction, I actually say that no one should criticise another person. But do I really think that?

And indeed I do. But I think each criticism, feedback and judging has its place.

Judging

Now to start with the judging, I think it is just fine to judge. We can judge whatever and whoever we like. Actually it is what we do all the time, judge by our first impression and take all kind of decisions based on that. And many times it hardly is any conscious judgement. It is often just based on our previous understanding of the world.

But that does not mean we can throw that judgement on to the other. I think judgement needs a strong filter before it gets public so to speak. A conscious filter that differentiates our own prejudice. Any prejudice.

Feedback

As to feedback I see it as a very important tool. But even if I think it is different from criticism, I still do not think it has to be given just like that. In a teacher/pupil setting it is very necessary. And there might be many others like in the workplace. Or if someone asks for feedback.

But I think even feedback needs a filter. Not just whatever comes to mind (unless the other asks for that) but filter our own prejudice again.

And besides that, I think it needs a certain setting. A setting with cultural determined rules that provide a certain ‘playground’.

Criticism

What I would call criticism is a very important factor, but I think there is actually no circumstance that anyone should criticise another person.

I think criticism has to do with analysing and improving. And there is no other person who can see what exactly needs to be improved at that specific moment in time.

We all might think we do know, but in many cases we let our own judgement of how things should be, get in the way.

There might be someone like in psycho analysis that goes certain steps along, but in the end it is the person itself who has to do the criticising.

Discussions

But I think criticism is very essential in another way. It is an important factor in discussions. But only if it is used in discussing ideas.

And then it is essential. Because without critical analysing we can only get so far. We never get to the bottom of things.

As I see it, criticism is only possible when people who participate in the discussion know themselves and respect the other. And if they do not respect each other, there is no way of criticising and as a result no way of really discussing.

Concepts

As for using my basic model of Integral and the Zodiac, I would place the concepts as follows:

6. Criticism

7. Feedback

9. Judging

Again, just my view at this moment…

Development, Evolution and Transformation

Annemieke — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:17:17 +0000

Still discussing the transformation of consciousness, I suddenly realised something. Transformation is a word I tend to use a lot, but also a word like development.

So what exactly is the difference and what is the resemblance. And also what is the difference of those two with evolution.

First I will go and look up the general definitions and see how they relate to how I use them both.

Development
Act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining.

Evolution
A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Transformation
Changing in form or shape or appearance.

Difference

First off it seems that transformation is more radical. Changing into something else. While evolution and development tend to change more over time.

But I think there is another difference. It is just only a thought, but somehow I have the feeling that transformation happens after a certain time of development or evolution. As if evolution and development (at this point I can not see where exactly those two differ) are gradually building to a certain point.

And transformation needs another element to change into something else.

So developing (evolving) is more like building or constructing and transforming is more like collapsing first and grow into something totally new.

Mind and Matter

Somehow I have the feeling developing is ‘matter’ that grows in complexity. Or ‘mind’ that grows in complexity.

But at some point they transform into something new.

Maybe this is where the potential side of mind (psyche) and matter (energy) comes in.

Three Subconscious Levels

Annemieke — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:23:18 +0000

In Three Levels of the Mind I used three signs, to symbolise the primordial, individual and universal mind.

In that context, all three together represent the conscious mind.

In my previous post, Subconscious or Psyche, three other signs represent the subconscious mind.

That part of all knowledge that is not consciously known, but largely influences all of our actions and thoughts.

On the page Unconscious Mind I collected some different views on that part of our ‘consciousness’.

In my previous post I also explored some different words to decide which one would be best to use in the context of this blog. For the moment I will choose ’subconsious’ to see how that works.

Besides that, I am using my basic model to name the areas for each subconscious part.

Cancer (4) falls in the ‘primordial‘ part, but also in a part that can be called ‘personal inside‘.

The next sign, Scorpio (8), falls in the ‘individual‘ part, but besides that, in a part that can be called ‘collective inside‘.

And finally the last sign, pisces (12), falls in the ‘universal‘ part and also in the part ‘collective outside‘.

4. Primordial Subconscious (personal inside)

Nurturing, support, emotional bonding, belonging, roots, source. Ground of your being. The unconscious, feelings, emotion, first emotional attachments to the world. Mothering, emotional and physical nurturing.

Experiences and imprinting during infancy and childhood. Family, ancestors, heritage, relationships to the past. Belonging, feeling at home, caring.

Feeling supported, that needs are provided for. Insecurities and fears if your needs haven’t been fulfilled.

8. Individual Subconscious (collective inside)

Transformation, change, ego-death, rebirth, transcendence. Intense emotional involvement with the process of personal growth. Movement from individual certainties to the mysteries of life. Spirit breaking through the limitations of the individual ego.

Intense, passionate, brooding, magnetic, unyielding, driven by emotions. Stands up for self, usually covertly, manipulates power. Understands deeper layers of the psyche beyond the ego, unable to communicate this well leading to misunderstandings.

Intrigued by the dark side of life. The underground, people whose job involves going beneath surface appearances. Breaking free of illusory limitations. Self-mastery.

12. Universal Subconsious (collective outside)

Surrender to the universe, to higher goals, ego sacrifice. Compassion and empathy, selfless work. Seeing the unity of all things. The end of cycles, forming seeds for the next cycle of growth.

Mysticism, fails to make normal distinctions. Laziness, victim, martyr, servant. Tends to escapism. Fantasy, drugs, alcohol, religion. Very receptive, sensitive, even psychic. Co-dependency, care-taking.

Psyche, Shadow and Collective unconscious

Somehow I think the first two (4 and 8) are what Freud and Jung would call the ‘psyche’, the second (8) what Jung would call the ’shadow’ and the last (12) what Jung would call the ‘collective unconscious’.

Subconscious or Psyche

Annemieke — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:08:11 +0000

I was going to write about the different forms of subconscious. But before I could get anything done, there was this very first problem already.

Should I use the word subconsious, or is it better to use the word unconscious? What is actually the difference?

Then I thought, okay what do I mean to describe?

Again that led me back to the whole mind versus matter issue. And the very basic thoughts about that from Jean Carteret, that I put on the page Language and Psyche.

Carteret uses the words language and psyche to describe the opposites of matter and energy. And according to him, language is to the psyche what matter is to energy. With one difference, energy is active where the psyche is passive.

But like energy has another side of the coin (matter), the psyche also has another side (language).

So Carteret uses language, but I had been thinking if maybe I could better use the word concepts. I am going to investigate that further in another blogpost, but here in this post I want to find a word for the psyche (or unconscious or subconscious) part of the model.

Maybe psyche would be a good word, but that word is mainly used for the individual inner life. And that was only part of what I mean to describe.

I also mean, what Jung calls, the collective unconscious. And that might not be covered by the word psyche.

And I mean the emotions in our childhood that actually belong to others. Maybe they also could be called psyche, but it is that what is not our own at first, what we picked up as a child from the environment.

I could call them primordial, individual and universal psyche (according to the zodiac signs cancer, scorpio and pisces) but I am not sure if that would cover the whole of subconscious (or unconscious).

So I was wondering if there was a word that would cover it all better. I have been using soul which worked rather well. But somehow it does not seem to be the best word.

In a recent discussion someone used the word information and somehow that seemed perfect. I do not know exactly why yet, because information is used in many ways but not when someone means unconscious, subconscious, psyche or emotion.

But together with concepts, it seems to fit well. It is only that information in this sense is just that, all the information that is out there and all the information that is within each of us. Nothing packaged, just being there to be intepreted.

And that is what the concepts are for. Concepts as packages of information. The packages that can be communicated with others.

But before that it is just information. Information that translates into emotions. That translates into the psyche. And that also translates into dreams.

That what lays beneath every form of consciousness.

Debate or Dialogue

Annemieke — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:19:19 +0000

After my previous post about different types of discussions I got to think there have to be some differentiations already. But they are likely not just all called discussion. So what other forms of discussion are there?

After some searching I found that the most characteristic forms are debate and dialogue.

I was not sure what exactly the difference was between them, so I decided to take some existing definitions (here and here) and put them together in this post. That way I can compare them and see what I like and dislike about each.

Polarising or Collaborating

Debate is competitive and or oppositional, two or more opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.

Dialogue is collaborative, cooperative, multiple sides work toward a shared understanding.

Counter or Listen

In debate one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments.

In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning and to find common ground.

Closed or Open

Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude, an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.

Defend or Reflect

In debate one submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, expecting that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it.

Invest or Suspend

Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.

Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending of one’s beliefs.

Belittle or Respect

Debate rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or deprecate other participants.

Dialogue respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend.

One or Many

Debate assumes a single right answer that somebody already has.

Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to a greater understanding.

Convergent or Divergent

Debate is convergent.

Dialogue is divergent.

Winning or Common ground

In debate winning is the goal.

In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal.

Critique or Introspect

Debate causes critique of the other position.

Dialogue causes introspection on one’s own position.

Own or Other

Debate defends ones own position as the best solution and excludes other solutions.

Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions.

Conclusion or Open-end

Debate demands a conclusion.

Dialogue remains open-ended.

Flaws or Strenghts

In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position.

In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions.

Disapprove or Concern

Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and of the belittles or deprecates the other person.

Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.

It is already getting more clear what I do and do not like so much about each. Actually I quite like debates. I like to differentiate further if necessary. And from the dialogue I especially like the suspending of a belief.

But there are several things I absolutely do not like about debates. But there are also several things I do not like so much about dialogues. At least about the definitions as they are stated here.

So I think I would like a form which combines both. The open mind and respect of the dialogue combined with the critical and opposing nature of the debate.

Consciousness Discussions

Annemieke — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:18:20 +0000

These last days I have been discussing consciousness. I really like to discuss that. What is consciousness, how is it created, are animals conscious? Just one of my favorite subjects to discuss.

But also one of the most difficult ones. Because in order to discuss something we need consciousness itself. We need some level of consciousness to be able to discuss something.

So maybe it is an idea to look at discussions instead of at consciousness itself. And instead of exploring if there are different kinds of consciousness, to see if there are different kinds of discussions.

First there are discussions that just can interact about everything. Using the language we learned at schools, got from books and read in the newspaper. We can discuss the weather, discuss what is happening in the world and so on.

At that point no one needs strong opinions, just use what we learned, heard or just read somewhere. All that needs is information that we got delivered in packages by others.

Lets call the consciousness that is needed for this kind of discussions consciousness A.

The second kind of discussions are those that DO involve opinions. I will call the consciousness that is needed for that kind of discussion consciousness B.

If there is as discussion that involves opinions, there immediately emerges an huge problem. Where does that opinion come from. As long as we define it clearly as being an opinion it does not have to be a problem.

But the biggest problem with opinions is that people have the idea that their opinion has a certain truth to it. Which might make this kind of discussions, the ones with consciousness B, very heated at times. Because at some point they touch upon the worldview of the participants.

And have no other way then getting stuck at some point.

So this is where consciousness C comes in. Which I would call ego consciousness. Which is different from the other forms because it can not leave out personal experience.

It is a consciousness where the individual combines internal and external information, personal experience with universal knowledge.

So maybe that asks for a fourth kind of discussion, lets call that a discussion with consciousness D, a discussion that seperates universal and personal knowledge, but does not find one more important than the other.

Just uses other measurements to value both.