i'm not  the sort to flount my tie-tying moments, but what the heck .....i don't see why a diamond can't be grrrls best friend

and on a different note...speaking of tangkas and such...the one's with,  in-Concert Couples? we know, or at least those of us who work with 'energy, ' there are chakras  above the crown  chakra..beyond the matter-bodymind.........so......i 'spose one can say, it is possible to have a relationships which   transcends space , tanscend time.

ever had a vivo-like  experience where one side of the head gets shaved .....? too weird...one and one .. = 3? 

IAMisHome:

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

Is there going to be a class?  Count me in! 

adastra:

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.

Hmm, that's SO interesting, Arthur.  A dimension I sure hadn't thought of...

I'm thinking: what's the right balance in a relationship (I guess it would be a 'romantic' relationship, to use Teacup's term, in this instance) between energy kept in and energy shared? 

Let me explain.  In my own experience, intimacy naturally demands a level of privacy.  This level will vary between individuals, but intuitively I feel that boundaries are needed where intimacy is concerned.   In the same way that its unhealthy for individuals not to have personal boundaries (and also unhealthy for them to be rigid).  By and large, we can have 'too much information' (as the saying goes) when it comes to the intimate details of other people's love lives.  And by and large, they themselves don't want intrusion into their privacy.   I'd say that this may be a UR, genetic thing as well as a LR social thing - but it also seems to be a LL requirement of a successful relationship that it is a container of energy and that the energy doesn't leak out too much and dissipate by being TOO open.

On the other hand, there are limits, and its also natural for intimacy to be shared to some degree with others, usually intimate friends or relatives...  Again, the extent to which this takes place will vary according to the individuals.  And gender plays a part, because women seem to share more freely with each other than men, who often, ime, will divert the conversation if it gets too personal!  Its all very fluid and delicate and sensitive, isn't it.... Part of the journey, again confirming how cognition plays such an under-estimated role as we gradually work these things out in a relationship, learning as much as feeling....

A different thought also occurs:  'when' the relationship ends.  Is it natural that relationships end?  That they change?  Do we have to accept that they end, are they 'organic' in some way, or is there actually no reason why they should end, is it about adaptation, evolution even?  

IAMisHome:

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. 

Hi I AM,

It didn't finish for a neck tie Tie tying is indeed a metaphor for more serious cultural values, norms that were not shared, hence my noting in the original post "for that and other more serious interpretations of cultural norms the relationship did not last." For one example I was in graduate school, she was considerably more flush with a house on the right side of tracks and high expectations of what a man should provide financially. Needless to say a picnic with cheese sandwiches following a trip to the campus library did not create shared space!

The point about communication as central to creating a we is shorthand for Ken's rich and complex ideas in Integral Spirtuality Chapter 7 (especially 156-157) and ideas developed in earlier discussion on this thread. As earlier postings noted one can have "feelings" for someone but if its not reciprocated or is primarily physical/emotional attraction without communication and empathy there isn't truly a we. As Ken notes from the outside there are rules, grammar, signifiers and from the inside "a conglomerate of signifieds... a space of shared feelings and visions and desires and conflicts, a vortex of love and disappointment, obligations and broken promises, mutual understanding and devastating betrayels, the ups and downs of almost everything you and I call 'important' in life, these webs of felt relationships." Ken continues "in so many ways, it's a different beast, this magnificent 'we' that forms as you and I understand each other, and love each other, and hate each other, and in so many ways feel each other's existence as part of our own being..."

I "failed" to read her/my soul? This feels like a bit of harsh judgement though it may not have been intended that way. I don't see this as an either/or question. If I understand integral post metaphysics correctly even if one does perceive someone's soul or essence or Big Mind/All That Is, it isn't just a given, but is filtered through all quadrant and stage perspectives. Every moment and every moment with her was/is tetra arising. From my perspective there were glimpses of soul. It was in part spiritual search and asking deeper questions that drew us together. But these intuitions are always filtered though the quadrants and perspectives. In terms of UL there were complex psychological histories, family of origin dynamics that had us reaching towards each other out of neediness rather than fullness. In the uppper right communications skills left a lot to be desired (her explosive anger, my passivity). LL has been discussed above and definitely interlinked with the LR (what grad assistants and beginning teachers are paid).

I'm definitely in for tie tying lessons with Balder and Helen. Hopefully you can upload video. I'm a visual learner.

Davidd:

Hmm, that's SO interesting, Arthur.  A dimension I sure hadn't thought of...

I'm thinking: what's the right balance in a relationship (I guess it would be a 'romantic' relationship, to use Teacup's term, in this instance) between energy kept in and energy shared? 

Let me explain.  In my own experience, intimacy naturally demands a level of privacy.  This level will vary between individuals, but intuitively I feel that boundaries are needed where intimacy is concerned.   In the same way that its unhealthy for individuals not to have personal boundaries (and also unhealthy for them to be rigid).  By and large, we can have 'too much information' (as the saying goes) when it comes to the intimate details of other people's love lives.  And by and large, they themselves don't want intrusion into their privacy.   I'd say that this may be a UR, genetic thing as well as a LR social thing - but it also seems to be a LL requirement of a successful relationship that it is a container of energy and that the energy doesn't leak out too much and dissipate by being TOO open.

On the other hand, there are limits, and its also natural for intimacy to be shared to some degree with others, usually intimate friends or relatives...  Again, the extent to which this takes place will vary according to the individuals.  And gender plays a part, because women seem to share more freely with each other than men, who often, ime, will divert the conversation if it gets too personal!  Its all very fluid and delicate and sensitive, isn't it.... Part of the journey, again confirming how cognition plays such an under-estimated role as we gradually work these things out in a relationship, learning as much as feeling....

I totally agree that there have to be healthy boundaries, and that one (or two) can err by being too open or too closed.  Mostly I was musing on the specific case where the boundaries are TOO firm - where the couple is essentially sealed off from a healthy amount of feedback.  In the normal course of events, people will talk with their friends about elements of their relationship, especially problems or challenges they may be encountering - the kind of feedback you get will help to avoid "cultish" behavior and emotional/cognitive distortions of whatever kind that may arise.

It's true that generally men are less forthcoming in discussing intimate details, and that's probably one reason why in heterosexual couples I know, often the women seem a lot more "clued in" about what's going on with the relationship than the man is.  Personally I tend to relate in a more typically "feminine" manner when it comes to discussion and disclosure within and about the relationship.  Actually I have often considered myself lucky in that women have tended to talk with me the way they talk amongst themselves...you can learn a lot that way.  Sometimes too much. 

A different thought also occurs:  'when' the relationship ends.  Is it natural that relationships end?  That they change?  Do we have to accept that they end, are they 'organic' in some way, or is there actually no reason why they should end, is it about adaptation, evolution even?  

Indeed, I don't think it needs  to end, although I would suggest that change is inevitable.  In the sense I was discussing, "end" could either mean the two people ceasing all communication or it could mean the relationship changing to a non-sexual/romantic form.  In my ideal, a romantic relationship should transcend and include friendship, and if the romantic element ends, then I would hope to be left with the friendship - a friendship enriched and deepened by the journey into and through another kind of intimacy.

So far that's working out very well for me.

arthur

adastra:

  In my ideal, a romantic relationship should transcend and include friendship, and if the romantic element ends, then I would hope to be left with the friendship - a friendship enriched and deepened by the journey into and through another kind of intimacy.

V. interesting.... A LL holarchy, then, in which romance transcends and includes friendship....

Further musings: Are people without romantic relationships missing out in terms of intimacy, then... Is depth lost when a relationship ends?   Where does this leave celibate people, or those who don't meet the right person...are they disadvantaged in terms of consciousness development....What DOES 'romantic' mean, really, in this context?  Much more than sexual, it would seem....

hbishop:

"a conglomerate of signifieds... a space of shared feelings and visions and desires and conflicts, a vortex of love and disappointment, obligations and broken promises, mutual understanding and devastating betrayels, the ups and downs of almost everything you and I call 'important' in life, these webs of felt relationships." Ken continues "in so many ways, it's a different beast, this magnificent 'we' that forms as you and I understand each other, and love each other, and hate each other, and in so many ways feel each other's existence as part of our own being..."

Yes, doesn't Ken put it so well!!

btw, clearly you guys don't work in such a formal environment as me.  I have to wear a tie each day!!

Davidd:

Further musings: Are people without romantic relationships missing out in terms of intimacy, then... Is depth lost when a relationship ends?   Where does this leave celibate people, or those who don't meet the right person...are they disadvantaged in terms of consciousness development....What DOES 'romantic' mean, really, in this context?  Much more than sexual, it would seem....

I don't think the depth is lost, as long as one has a memory. I still love and remember everyone I've ever loved. Transcending and including all the best parts, as memory often does.

adastra:

  

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 ...
... the couple could wrap themselves in some sort of cultic isolation as Robert Masters talks about.

it seems likely that the relationship would be more unhealthy than otherwise, due to the lack of processing that comes with a healthy 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.

Yes.  That's right.  Thank you Adastra to put these words here!  Even if I knew the relation between the right side and the left side, I had never really clik on that. 

hbishop:

    It didn't finish for a neck tie ...I'm definitely in for tie tying lessons with Balder and Helen. Hopefully you can upload video. I'm a visual learner.

I feel like I put one's foot in it.  Without even knowing what it is 

hbishop:

I "failed" to read her/my soul? This feels like a bit of harsh judgement though it may not have been intended that way.   

Be sure, it wasn't my intent!

That I meant, so often we are not able to say exactly the right things about our feelings.  Often, we don't know them exactly.  I mean deeply.  What is the shadow part?  And you said it exactly

hbishop:

Every moment and every moment with her was/is tetra arising. From my perspective there were glimpses of soul. It was in part spiritual search and asking deeper questions that drew us together.

Don't you feel this kind of conciousness about a relationship contributes to enhance exponentially its value?  It's so unique in those days to have in same times genuine emotions, being friendship or love, and to learn about our relation, and in the same time about ourselves.  It's a great gift one to another, isn't it?

Davidd:

Further musings: Are people without romantic relationships missing out in terms of intimacy, then... Is depth lost when a relationship ends?   Where does this leave celibate people, or those who don't meet the right person...are they disadvantaged in terms of consciousness development....What DOES 'romantic' mean, really, in this context?  Much more than sexual, it would seem....

I believe it would be exagerate to relate conciousness development and romantic relationships as only way to have it.  Tamgodess spoke of churchmen.  But the laity may also very well lived in a growing consciousness.  But for certain persons, love relationship is probably the best way to do it.  And you know, probably it depends of a lot of things.  If one knew a very deep love relationship, very profound and the partner die, maybe it will be not so easy to find the same depth with another and it will be easier to live alone. You have the love inside of you. It is really not easy to find the right one.  Maybe it is cause I need to evolve again...

The romantic love, in my mind, is far above the sexual part.  I always thought at sexuality as a complement of love.  It comes after. I have not always act like it though.  In fact, I never lived a love relationship where there is spirit, mind and body participating.  Never.  Even if I know there is the case of a bunch of people, it is not a consolation. 

Before, I said it will come at the good moment.  But since I speak of that, it is a lot more difficult.  I put the accent on the lack.  But in the other way, it pushed myself to clean some parts and to make me conscious to look at my spiritual needs.  The life is good and generous.  All the time. 

IAMisHome:

for certain persons, love relationship is probably the best way to do it.  And you know, probably it depends of a lot of things.  If one knew a very deep love relationship, very profound and the partner die, maybe it will be not so easy to find the same depth with another and it will be easier to live alone. You have the love inside of you. It is really not easy to find the right one.  Maybe it is cause I need to evolve again...

Martine (IAMisHome), you have posted some wonderful insights in this thread.  Earlier, you said:

'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.'

Yes.  Intersubjectivity happens anyway.  Subjective and objective development happen anyway.  But integral is about conscious development, isn't it?  Bringing awareness to what is. A relationship really is an Integral Living Practice if you bring awareness to it.  And as we've been realising, awareness shows how incredibly complex any relationship, romantic or otherwise, always is.  You mentioned the psychograph on another thread: picture all those many lines of development, all at different levels, for each individual.  Now imagine a relationship between two or more people each with their own different psychographs, the lines changing all the time, and the variations blur dizzyingly!   Wilber's term, the 'vortex of we' is pretty accurate. You say, 'it is really not easy to find the right one'.  Not easy, no - its miraculous!     Whatever the 'right' one is.    'Attraction' does help us home in, though, right?  Meaning attraction on many levels - the gross physical, yes, but also emotional, intellectual, subtle level - all those things which come together like the many chemicals which make up an alluring perfume and make us say....'yes!!!'

Davidd:

...You say, 'it is really not easy to find the right one'.  Not easy, no - its miraculous!     Whatever the 'right' one is.    'Attraction' does help us home in, though, right?  Meaning attraction on many levels - the gross physical, yes, but also emotional, intellectual, subtle level - all those things which come together like the many chemicals which make up an alluring perfume and make us say....'yes!!!

That's right. What could it be, if not a "Miracle of We"? 

<text deleted>