'She's...she's wearing 'We'.......'  

 

---

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

Davidd:

  For example, ... learning to accept and receive love as well as to give it!   Because its mutual.  Its intersubjective.

<text deleted>

Helene:

Forever Heart knows, image-creates, it enters what has been created...to keep it going...

"i'm absolutely astonished!" - hey girrard! did you hear this -  this am?  must have said it a hundred times! 

'tis true.....last day am, at exactly 8:32 my 'champagne bubbly hand' reached for the "Classic Tarot" deck and :: The Star / Lovers / Fool / and Sun card swam into her vision....

during this am's SunMOonSonata champagne mmmmmmmmmmmmmm  i was plotting to say something sassy here....but alas;( heard "NO!" hmm ....

 at exactly 8:32 hand reaches for the Classic Tarot deck...eyes still closed, still horizontal - she shuffles the Major Arcana ... stops , draws top 4 cards :: The Fool / The Star / The Lovers / The Sun ----in that order

 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

See, now, to my way of thinking this kind of stuff does not contribute to the Integral Relationships thread, and in fact distracts considerably from it.  I've used the "report abuse" button as discussed in the Banish Helene to the Seventh Circle for Spamming, Please thread.  I would encourage anyone who feels likewise to do the same; if it's just me, then wotever. 

As previously noted, this in no way distracts me from the radiant divine splendor of Helene the Child of God - I would just prefer her to radiate more appropriately.  Blessings to  you, Helene darlin'.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. 

arthur

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

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

<text deleted>

I was reading the blurb for the Caroline Myss dialogue with Ken and a passage in it clicked with this thread:

'Caroline and Ken look at the transformative nature of humility, and why it seems to be one of the least desirable aspects of the spiritual path for many seekers.  Ken goes on to comment on what he calls the “Three Faces of Spirit” or the “1-2-3 of Spirit,” which is the recognition that Spirit can be understood through three broad perspectives: Spirit in 1st-person (the great I or I AMness), Spirit in 2nd-person (the great Thou or You), and Spirit in 3rd-person (the great It or Web of Life).  Particularly in the West, spiritual practitioners are often comfortable with Spirit in 1st-person (I am Spirit) and Spirit in 3rd-person (the great Web of Life is Spirit), but Spirit in 2nd-person (You are Spirit) knocks them off balance—as well it should, because Spirit in 2^nd Person is, in every way, better than you, bigger than you, infinitely more than you.   Before this face of Spirit, the living Intelligence that sees every corner of your soul, that very One who bestows all grace, the only appropriate response is gratitude, humility, devotion.  Spirit in 2nd-person is the great ego-killer, and while 1st- and 3rd-person practices can without a doubt introduce you to your own Big Mind, they also leave plenty of room for your own Big Ego to follow you every step of the way.  Rest assured that Spirit in 2nd-person - read: God Almighty - does not'.

Yes indeed.  The LL - I/You, I/Thou - relationship can be with God as it can be with a person.  As we've said.

A relationship with God is still intersubjectivity.

And for me, this is a clue to what the secret ingredient is in that perfume of love.

Liz/Tam mentioned, way back in the thread, developing a crush on a teacher.  I think that the same process is at work in a little crush and a relationship with God.  Crazy?  I don't think so.  Its the miracle of intersubjectivity:  just on different levels.

There is magic (or 'miracle') in every intersubjective relationship.

Check your own feelings.  Isn't there an element of AWE in every experience of love, at whatever level?  A fan infatuated with a celebrity feels awe, just as a nun feels awe when rapt in prayer.  I've shared before how, when my wife and I first met, we couldn't look at each other.  Awe.

Spirit in 2nd Person.  When we encounter it, however humbly (and humility is a friend to love, just as power/domination is an enemy), we're 'knocked off balance'.

As we are in a higher state of UL consciousness.  This time, its in LL intersubjectivity. 

 

 

---

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

<text deleted>

 

See in someone the same delicate lace than in the Web of Life.  So incredibly astounding keeping you away from eachother. 

In the same way, we live in the Web of Life, fully and lightly. We can choose to live with eachother.  Seeing the Beauty, the Goodness and the Truth.

Regarding the "spirit" of relationship, I want to mention that I do relationship for a living. I'm a psychotherapist. Research shows that regardless of theoretical orientation, professional degree, credentials, years of experience, etc, what matters most about the therapy is the quality and depth of the relationship.

I think it's precisely the "spirit" quality about relationship that makes psychotherapy therapeutic--and also sacred.

Something remarkable happens in the intersubjective space created between clinician and client, and it's in that space where the healing occurs.

It's also why I think Catholic confession actually works (when stripped of all it's moralism and medieval residue). It's one thing to cry by yourself behind locked doors, it's an altogether different experience to cry when in the presence of a caring other--regardless of the role that other is playing (best friend, spouse, parent, hair stylist, priest). I actually believe that the kind of "witnessing" I'm describing is "god-presence". And being vulnerable, exposed, and fully seen by that witnessing other is what heals.

Without minimizing my training and experience, from one valid perspective, I don't have to DO anything. I just have to be present, fully present, and the "miracle of we" occurs, and that miracle heals.

So David says "There is magic (or 'miracle') in every intersubjective relationship". I couldn't agree more!

Relationships are really, really cool, no?

;-)

---

There are two types of conversations worth having; those about the deepest things, and gossip!

IAMisHome:

 

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?

 

No worries. I misread. The difficulties of  catching meaning without face and voice are very real in this type of setting.

Well said- communication of depth of feelings and the full spectrum of interiors is key and not always easy.

Absolutely a gift. I used to think that having the deeper questions in common was in itself enough, but I realize now that the whole integral framework is influencing perspectives and communication. But with some awareness even when things don't work out as we like there's still lessons learned and a chance to bring more consciousness to all our relationships.

 

 

---

Namaste,
Harv

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

<text deleted>

Kameshvar:

  I think it's precisely the "spirit" quality about relationship that makes psychotherapy therapeutic--and also sacred. Something remarkable happens in the intersubjective space created between clinician and client, and it's in that space where the healing occurs....I actually believe that the kind of "witnessing" I'm describing is "god-presence". And being vulnerable, exposed, and fully seen by that witnessing other is what heals...I don't have to DO anything. I just have to be present, fully present, and the "miracle of we" occurs, and that miracle heals.

Great point, Kameshvar.  I too have for many years practiced Carl Rogers' 'client-centered therapy' as a basic approach underlying all my work.  Rogers showed that only three conditions were 'necessary and sufficient' for healing:  empathy, which we have talked about in this thread, genuineness, and warmth or positive regard.   Nothing need be 'done' for people who are able to respond to this approach (those able to be present also so they can receive) and I think you put your finger on the secret - its the 'miracle of we' which actually heals.  Rogers took a humanistic view, and now Wilber adds the dimension of Spirit.

 

---

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

hbishop:

The difficulties of  catching meaning without face and voice are very real in this type of setting.

What better that bright eyes to see you said something not appropriated

hbishop:

  I used to think that having the deeper questions in common was in itself enough, but I realize now that the whole integral framework is influencing perspectives and communication. But with some awareness even when things don't work out as we like there's still lessons learned and a chance to bring more consciousness to all our relationships.

Yes.  Did you listen Carolyn Myss interview?  I thought at Kameshvar and David comments about the presence of a friend to heal.  The great Web of Life gives us what we need.  And I wonder if Ken counts that as a UL phenomenon or a LL intersubjectivity.  What did you say about this?  It has the phenomenon of Carolyn in UL but also their relation in LL, even expressed by a book in the UR.

<text deleted>

Davidd:

  Rogers showed that only three conditions were 'necessary and sufficient' for healing:  empathy, which we have talked about in this thread, genuineness, and warmth or positive regard.   [:)

I will look into Rogers´ description of these conditions.  I hope that he includes under ´genuineness´, as tendency which could be checked out, left out in the cloakroom:  the often subtle need/validation that therapists try to sap out of their clients presence.   But it happens in many relationships to some extent, doesn´t it?

Marianthi.