Activity
User login
-
Ria Baeck - 58 min 15 sec ago
-
George Por - 6 days 22 hours ago
-
George Por - 1 week 6 hours ago
-
Helen Titchen Beeth - 1 week 4 days ago
-
Ria Baeck - 2 weeks 21 hours ago
Continuing to Inquire
As I continue to reflect upon and integrate our time together in Moving the Edge, more questions are arising. I realized this morning that I, you, we, have this collective who can access and share in this ongoing inquiry. So I pose the question:
What is the role of the personal in our learning and training in building this container for collective intelligence?
During our time together there were several times when very personal feelings of sadness, of inner pain, of struggle, of fear,were shared. If these feelings are present in the "field", so to speak, is this process a necessary one to bring us more to a place of wholeness, of trust, of oneness? I ask this because I noticed that we did not access the Middle, when these feelings were being expressed. It was when we moved beyond, beyond any personal feelings, into something greater than ourselves, that the Middle spoke. Is there a ways to get there, to that perspective of something beyond self, without going through the doorway of pain and sadness and fear held in the group?
What are your experiences and ideas about this?
- Judy Wallace's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Subscribe by RSS
Submitted by Judy Wallace on March 29, 2006 - 12:54.



Inquiring further into the role of the personal
The personal and the impersonal-egging us on to moving the edge
I think the avoidance of the personal in comments or conversation blocks the access to the place beyond ego. The most personal and the most universal are the same. Our commonality of being is accessed through our commonality of feeling.....
I just got home to Virginia last night after staying in Stockholm with Maria over the week end... Here are the poems I promised to send, about how love is the source of co-intelligence...
It occurred to me at our conference many times that our true forbears in co-intelligence were poets. They have that ability to speak from their individual experience so articulately about what they have noticed it rings a bell in the rest of us in universal ways. We can affirm the truth about ourselves together because the poet has so accurately described our own experience of the way things are. The “magic in the middle” when the magic happens in our groups is poetry in motion.
The poem I was quoting from when I was crying when we were talking about celebrating the pain of shared loss, with the phrase “sing of human unsuccess, in a rapture of distress…” was from this wonderful poem by W.H. Auden on the occasion of the death of his friend and fellow poet William B. Yeats…I give you the whole poem here because I can’t edit it and because it is so much in honor of the courage to speak the truth.
In Memory Of W.B. Yeats
By W.H. Auden
He disappeared in the dead of winter:
The brooks were frozen, the airports almost deserted,
The snow disfigured the public statues;
The mercury sank in the mouth of the dying day.
What instruments we have agree
The day of his death was a dark cold day.
Far from his illness
The wolves ran on through the evergreen forests,
The peasant river was untempted by the fashionable quays;
By mourning tongues
The death of the poet was kept from his poems.
But for him it was his last afternoon as himself,
An afternoon of nurses and rumours;
The provinces of his body revolted,
The squares of his mind were empty,
Silence invaded the suburbs,
The current of his feeling failed; he became his admirers.
Now he is scattered among a hundred cities
And wholly given over to unfamiliar affections,
To find his happiness in another kind of wood
And be punished under a foreign code of conscience.
The words of a dead man
Are modified in the guts of the living.
But in the importance and noise of to-morrow
When the brokers are roaring like beasts on the floor of the Bourse,
And the poor have the sufferings to which they are fairly accustomed,
And each in the cell of himself is almost convinced of his freedom,
A few thousand will think of this day
As one thinks of a day when one did something slightly unusual.
What instruments we have agree
The day of his death was a dark cold day.
II
You were silly like us; your gift survived it all:
The parish of rich women, physical decay,
Yourself. Mad Ireland hurt you into poetry.
Now Ireland has her madness and her weather still,
For poetry makes nothing happen: it survives
In the valley of its making where executives
Would never want to tamper, flows on south
From ranches of isolation and the busy griefs,
Raw towns that we believe and die in; it survives,
A way of happening, a mouth.
III
Earth, receive an honoured guest:
William Yeats is laid to rest.
Let the Irish vessel lie
Emptied of its poetry.
In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;
Intellectual disgrace
Stares from every human face,
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.
Follow, poet, follow right
To the bottom of the night,
With your unconstraining voice
Still persuade us to rejoice.
With the farming of a verse
Make a vineyard of the curse,
Sing of human unsuccess
In a rapture of distress.
In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountains start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.
We talked about co-intelligence being one kind of intelligence among many, kind of fitted into each other like those little Russian dolls that have another doll inside and another doll inside. The earth has an intelligence of it’s own, a plant growing toward the sun demonstrates a kind of intelligence, and human individual intelligence resides in the context of those intelligences. But the last doll, inside of which human co-intelligence, the wisdom that comes from sharing, resides, is love. Co-intelligence depends on co-conscousness which depends on love.
So I came up with this poem by e.e. cummings, which I think, articulates the basis of co-intelligence. As he often does he contrasts people with the capacity for compassion with people who can merely count facts and trade categories and live according to symbols of wealth rather than the richness of life itself. “Timorous itsters all” is what cummings calls all those who are involved in what Martin Buber called “I-it” relations where they relate to each other as categories, rather than as beings. “I-Thou” relations between people, Buber said, are characterized by people honoring each other as sacred beings. e.e. cummings’ (cummings didn’t capitalize his name and asked others not to) poems often explore the contrast between bean counters and human beans…here is cummings' poem about co-intelligence:
the great advantage of being alive
(instead of undying) is not so much
that mind can no more disprove than prove
what heart may feel and soul may touch
--the great(my darling )happens to be
that love are in we, that love are in we
and here is a secret they never will share
for whom create is less than have
or one times one than when times where—
that we are in love, that we are in love:
with us they’ve nothing times nothing to do
(for love are in we am in I are in you)
this world( as timorous itsters all
to call their cowardice quite agree)
shall never discover our touch and feel
--for love are in we are in love are in we;
for you are and I am and we are(above
and under all possible worlds)in love
a billion brains may coax undeath
from fancied fact and spaceful time—
no heart can leap,no soud can breathe
but by the sizeless truth of a dream
whose sleep is the sky and the earth and the sea
For love are in you am in I are in we
I think that when e.e. cummings says that we are in love, he means like a fish in water. He doesn’t, I think, mean Hollywood or sentimentality. He means love like a medium within which we live, like water, or like a rock or something like that. Much love to you my friends. Brad
The role of the personal
Hi Judy,
Can we get to the middle without going through all these personal feelings? I think we can and we can't. I think we're trying to move to transpersonal consciousness levels. So we must move beyond the personal. Feeling it and letting it go, transcend it. As Ken Wilber calls it: transcending and integrating. If we are able to do this we can move to the middle very fast.
And, there is our shadow. Parts we didn't transcend and integrate, but from which we dissociated. They act as hidden subjects, alien to us, but very much determining our acts and the way we look to the world. Should we meditate upon them, disowning it as non-personal, we just affirm the unhealthy dissociation. Feeling whatever arises in our awareness as non-personal simply can't be done unless we fully own our feelings first. This is why Wilber argues that we need Freud as well as Buddha. So in order to move to the middle we need to transcend our feelings and in order to be able to do that in a healthy way we first need to own them fully.
When I was in the group and stumbled onto something very peronal, which I didn't own, which I didn't fully accept, it was this part that grew dominating my mind. If I was aware of this, I could notice I was not fully participating anymore. I was this egopart being triggerd, so to speak. To empty myself of this, showing this, as me, in the group, was a very powerful way to re-own this part. Look: this is who I am right now. The non-judging attutude of the participants helped me to accept it as who I was, to own it, and then I could move on transcending it and connect to the middel again.
So, Judy, I think it's both-and, as it is most of the time.
Jan Nouwen
PS. I do believe that this emptying in the group can help to be able to transcend it for that moment and to connect to the field again. I don't think however it can fully replace therapeutic work needed to heal these parts. But then again, accepting is is a very important step in therapeutic healing.
The role of the personal is to get beyond the personal