More on the Cointegrative

{Note: Here is a further introduction to the “Cointegrative” concept. It was written for a online group before I hand coined that word (“I used the word “integrative” for a while), but I have gone through and updated the wording as well as making a few other changes and additions--I-P}

I want to say something, as conversation opener, about Motivation and Intention

In Healthy Culture (and in Cointegrative Science, the name I am giving to the part of healthy Culture that deals more or less with the mind, with Cosmology, Logic, Meaning etc..) there is the assumption of the primary togetherness of Subject and Object, of Inner and Outer, of Self and World. This assumption of fundamental togetherness has some surprising implications since it actually suggests that Both the idea of changing the world first and then perhaps changing oneself (the "political" idea) as well as the other Idea of first changing oneself and then the world (the "spiritual" idea) are both misconceived objectives. From the point of view of fundamental togetherness, it is only possible to change and heal the inner and the outer together, at the same time; because that is the fundamental way they exist at all.

What this means in practice is that,in taking the political idea as primary, the goals of one-sidedly outward activism will inherently be distorted, and sabotaged by the degree to which the unattended inner wounds and fear-based inner issues are distorting the political diagnosis and action. In such a case the impulse to such one-sided extroversion can be understood as something motivated by those very ignored inner issues themselves as a way of self protection, the ego being, after all, nothing if not one-sided. But the nemesis to the fear-based hubris implied in such one-sided activism can only be the ultimate failure of an agenda that was misconceived and falsely motivated from the start (though unfortunately none of this might ever be admitted by those involved).

This is because, even considering that someone or some group has success outwardly, and acquires some degree of power or influence, its not really that person who even has the power its the persons “shit”,( their egoic sick culture) that has it because, (owning to being unacknowledged and/or neglected) its the shit that “has” the person who has the power. This phenomenon is the source of all the corruption that makes whatever was genuine and healthy in seemingly well meaning political movements unsustainable over time and that assures some eventual reversion to a variation on the theme of the original status quo of sick culture (Consider the current state of South Africa after Mandela or modern India after Gandhi--to mention two of the most heart breaking aftermaths of political/social "success" ) There can be no sustainable justice, socially or ecologically without dealing with ones shit both inwardly and outwardly as the primary motivating intention behind any action.

This is essentially because Justice is basically a dynamic in which everybody is dealing with their own inner and outer shit (their own version of our shared, collective shit). When I am not acknowledging and dealing with my sick culture somebody else has to deal with it (as well as dealing with their own if they are trying to be in recovery) and this usually proves to be too much, so that what happens is that the shit get passed down stream literally and figuratively with the ultimate result that Gaia ends up having to deal with it (and with us). Given the fact (well, my belief) that "dealing with ones shit" (the positive way to say this would be something like "learning, growing and maturing as an Individual-Person") is really the whole point of our being in the world, and so the only source of real Meaning and Joy, the current situation it not only unjust, but, like all evil, really really Stupid.

There might still be an objection that "Their" shit is so much worse that "Ours" as to belie any comparison, so that what I am saying here is just ridiculous. There are many replies to this. One is that it seems to me that all the sick culture works together; that it is "synentropic" (if you will excuse a neologism); how would Hitler have faired for example if every body in Germany and elsewhere were concientiously dealing with their sick culture? Obviously the "cultural immune system" must have be very weak to succumb to such simplistic rhetoric. In such a case the untreated and seemingly harmless forms of sick culture in the people at large; forms of sick culture like, naiveté, nationalism, genderism, conformity, etc all worked together "synentropically" to produce the war and the Holocaust.  Connected with this idea is the understanding that there is "Sick-Culture of Omission" as well as "Sick Culture of Commission", and that the former, though relatively invisible contributes directly to the latter and is arguably even more important.

Having, I think been pretty persuasive about the one-sided outward orientations, I do not want to be misleading and vindicate equally onesided "inwardness". Exposing the false dichotomy of the usual attitude equally implies that the other form of onesideness; the illusion that political quietism or private "healing" is really even possible let alone Spiritual, is just as often an equally fear-based retreat from the truth; a "crime of omission" against the world and one of commission (essentially Fraud) against ourselves. There is no way of avoiding being implicated in the destruction of the world around us and I am not sure there is any good reason for wanting to be unless such personal "innocence" would be efficacious in stopping it from happening. It needs once and for all to be realized that dissociated "private", and comodifiable conceptions of "Health and Spirituality" (such as proliferate both in mainstream and alternative new age medicine and culture) represent both Sick conceptions of Health and Spiritless conceptions of Spirituality.  


Of course I don't mean here to advocate some integration of the blaming, one-sided, phony sort of politics prevalent in our sick culture as a remedy for this quietistic "Spiritual" illusion; two forms of one-sidedness do not equal balance anymore than sticking ones head in the oven and ones feet in the freezer amount to a temperate and balanced body temperature. Simply alternating the freezer and the oven doesn't make sense either since in the case that one tries to alternate the "spiritual" with the "political", the false separation of the two cannot but lead to situations in which, just when ones attention should be 90% focused on oneself and ones own shit, it is focused to that degree on the shit of world, and visa versa; just when I should be emphasizing some relatively civil or local responsibility implying a more extroverted orientation, fear will distract the attention toward some perfectionistic introverted search for perfect “self-mastery” or something...the ego, monkey-mind, or what ever you want to call it, really is just like that...

From this point of view then, the whole the issue needs to be become something like: "what gesture can I make both in this moment and in the future, to catalyze my own healing together-with that of others and the world?". On might also phrase the issue as how can I be "Soulfully Political" and "Politically Spiritual" (I actually prefer the word "soulful" in this context, since being "Spiritual" has too much of an air of having "arrived", which to me is basically laughable for anyone who is still hanging around in this dimension). Still another take on the problem would be how to be "Political" without being "Phony" and how to be "Spiritual" or "Soulful" with out being alienated and irresponsible, or (put positively) how to move toward an authentic and responsible Individual-Personhood?
 
To call such an intention (the intention to effect and realize both Inner and Outer healing), an "objective" would be misleading, since the idea of an Objective implies a fundamental separation--if not necessarily of the subject from the "object" (the inner from the outer)--at least of the future from the present, and past (and eternity too for that matter). To call it "Integrative", as I have done in the past still seems too onesided and doesn't imply the paradoxical inner/outer essence of the intention. So instead of talking about the above mentioned intention as an objective or an integrative, I call it a "Cointegrative" (pronounced "Co-in-TEG-ra-tive").

Since intentions of inner/outer healing (and I am asserting that this is what one should mean by having truly "Good" Intentions) naturally imply an admission of inner as well as outer sickness, being involved in Cointegrative Science and Healthy Culture, means being involved in an ongoing process of experiment, hypothesis and theory regarding how best to understand and "treat" ones own sickness in terms of the tentatively normative assumptions of healthy culture. Of course this must involve some idea (at least a theory) of ones own subjective individuality, including ones "shit" and Phoniness; ones own subjective sick culture. It also means some idea as well about how that fits into and the outer sick culture that is around one, this then implying some idea of how to act so as to increasingly challenge both these things in the same gesture (which would then be the experiment).

Cointegrative Scientists (Individual-Persons involved in the experimental “cultural pilot project” of healthy culture) are thus also Recovering Alienated-Phonies ("Alienation" being the opposite of "Personhood" a "Phoniness" being the Opposite of authentic "Individuality"), and are trying to sustain a Cointegrative intention by definition. But though its true that, in some ways, the overall outline of this situation is the same for everyone so involved, the practical, Individual details of the recovery process is something that must take into account the details of each individual-persons inner and outer situation and story, and so deal also the variations on the common theme of healing sick culture inwardly and outwardly together.

For example, how do I as a Myers-Briggs INTJ, as an enneagram 5, (I could add many other ways of tentatively understanding and talking about my subjective situation) successfully challenge my tendency to withdrawal and, judge--and conceal judgment, (all in inappropriate and unhealthy ways), how do I challenge this IN SUCH A WAY THAT the outer world is also maximally moved toward Healthy Culture? My whole life (at least the deliberate intentional part) is my reply, my experiment, regarding that question. This post itself is part of that experiment for me. For by sharing this blog, I hope that I am making a gesture toward moving out of enneagram 5-like secrecy, and seclusion in a way that will hopefully lead me towards a somewhat more 8-like role in the world generally, which (if my assessment of my own personality and Cointegrative path has not itself been distorted by my own sick culture) seems to be the path of healing for me.

For obvious reasons, having a Cointegrative is not something that is particularly flattering to the competitive, one-sided ego any more the growth and maturity of any kind are. Self-righteously focusing on what one thinks of as ones "piece of the Truth" and rather then ones "piece of the Lie" is certainly more fun at least superficially. All the bonding and blaming (you might even call it “Blame-Bonding”) of what is normally called “Solidarity” is involved in such an attitude. And even the self-deprecation, and shame/guilt of focusing only on ones "piece of the Lie" (with the guru or the psychiatrist) seems to be preferable (i suppose because it feels more secure and simple) than the more dynamic, paradoxical attitude that having a cointegrative intention and understanding involves. But such preferences are born only from inexperience (and from too much experience of unhealthy rigid, either/or thinking and feeling) ; it is just the presence of both the Lie and the Truth in all of us, in ever changing proportions, each one of the two manifesting unexpectedly to different degrees at different times, that make us all essentially equal and (when acknowledged) capable of a kind of real Friendship, Compassion and Togetherness that would not be possible otherwise.

But I want to say more about solidarity since I know that the lack of solidarity evinced by the political Left is often seen as the main reason for its ineffectiveness against the more organized Right wing. What I have said already implies that I think such factional solidarity cannot produce a sustainable society because it separates acknowledging and dealing with shared individual and collective inner shit from acknowledging and dealing with shared outer shit (really of acknowledging the existence of shared outer shit). What I want to say now (and in future posts) is that it is not only unsustainable but unnecessary. A healthy "Cultural Twelve Step Program”, in which we help each other in recovering from Alienated-Phoniness will necessarily involve actively helping each other live up to both our inner and outer (“vertical” and “horizontal”) responsibilities as Individual-Persons and in a way that will challenge and educate the dominant culture like nothing else will. But this is something I will show in a future post.

Before I close , I do want to mention that the Cointegrative Intention and understanding I am describing here is the centerpiece of a kind of “Coinferential” (Conferential) Logic and discourse which is part of the cosmology and ritual of Healthy Culture. Suffice to say here that the intention behind any form of discourse, Logical or otherwise, in large part determines its form and constitution, and that the dominant Logic and discourse is unconsciously formed by its alienated and exclusive intention and understanding. The kind of Cointegratively Conferential logic and discourse I intend to describe proceeds from different, non-alienated assumptions, understandings and intentions, and represents a collaborative rather than competitive or collusive way of talking, thinking, and being that will certainly play its part in any experimental ritual of healthy culture. But again, more of this in a future post.
For now, I want all of the above to serve as prolog to is the question of what you think the details of your own Cointegrative may be. In the light of what you know and believe about healthy Culture, how do you think you might further your own healing together with my own, And that of the world outside of us? How can we increasingly befriend (listen to, support, consider and challenge) each other, ourselves and the world in such a way that healing will come from it? Can participation in this group even lead to that?

Since, we don’t really even know each other much yet even virtually, I don’t necessarily expect any answers at the moment (although I would appreciate comments and questions). For now I just want to explain this idea of the Cointegrative as my intention and motivation for starting this tribe and ask if you think you could share in it--if only experimentally.

This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Shame

Shame (The Public-Private Image and the Individual-Person)

"Everybody has a piece of the Truth; Everybody has a piece of the Lie"--Healthy Culture Proverb

{note: as I said, this blog will eventually contain the significant posts from my defunct Motime blog of the same name as well as new posts on the theme of healthy culture. The following post is one from that blog which I think is worth carrying over to this one, though In a future post I intend to revisit and develop this theme in the context of what I am calling "Alienated Phonies Anonymous" (the Alienated-Phony being the ever present shadow of the Individual-Person) as the kind of identity-politics that would prevail in a culture of recovery and healing, which would involve recovery from shame, as well as arrogance among many other things...---I-P}

Strange how one can feel ashamed for things that one doesn't actually feel guilty for (not because the things are not wrong or stupid but because ...well because no body's perfect...), and feel guilty for the shame itself. At least I can sometimes feel this way...

From the point of view of Healthy Culture, shame is a "public/private" aspect of the culture of apartness rather than an "individual-personal" aspect of healthy culture, and the difference between the public/private and the individual-personal is precisely the one-sided dissociation of a persons "piece of the Truth" from their "piece of the Lie" that is embodied in the concept and reality of a "Public Image". Usually the public side of the image is the side that constitutes ones "piece of the Truth" or rather its the part that corresponds with what is praiseworthy or at least acceptable to "ones public" and usually to oneself. Ones "piece of the Lie" (or at least ones "piece of the currently not respectable") is in this case relegated to ones "private" life if its is acknowledged at all.

On the other side of the public/private coin, the whole concept of the "private" seems to be based on the assumption that "it ain't nobodies business if I do", which is to say that there are certain things and behaviors in our lives that no one has a legitimate interest in but ourselves because they effect no one but ourselves. However its not clear why any thing or behavior would be hidden in this privacy if there were not some chance that sharing it would threaten the one-sided public image of ourselves that we have bought into and identify with. Its also clear that many things considered "private business" in this way, such as excessive drug use (legal or illegal), or alcohol use are arguably the legitimate interest of others since they potentially effect others in the form of car or other accidents emotional callousness or violence to others etc..in fact most "private business" has some kind relevance or effect on others because, from the individual-personal point of view our very existence is inherently social (personal) just as much as it is "psychological" (individual) and vis-versa.

But of course, as I said, what keeps the "private" private is precisely "the public", that is, the one-sided and phony public image that in a culture of dissociation and apartness becomes the norm. In such a culture the actual togetherness of everyones "piece of the Lie" with "their piece of the Truth" and the paradoxical and unpredictable fluidity with which both the Lie and the Truth manifest in this or that given situation and individual, is not accepted at all, and so the dualistic, simplistic either/or kind of logic that dominates all other areas of sick culture does so here as well. From such a public point of view of mandated one-sidedness, a one-sidedly positive public image can only be replaced with an equally one-sidedly negative one. That is, if you are not a "good guy" then you are a "bad guy" and that is that. Anyone then trying to come out of the passive isolation and alienation of "private life" into a more authentic form of relationship with others and themselves has to expect, not an exchange of his or her phony public image for acceptance as an authentic and imperfect Individual-Person who obviously has changing moral/ethical strengths and weaknesses like everyone else, but rather they can reasonably expect summary relegation to the equally phony and one-sided negative public image of a "bad guy", with all the ostracism and shaming that that implies. Under such silly circumstances its certainly understandable that most people choose to keep their "private life" private even though in the long run this is not conducive to happiness or real belonging.

I think this entire situation has a lot to do with family dynamics and with so called adults being stuck in a less than mature stages of human development in which the unrealistic idealization or blaming of a parent gets carried over into adult life. The parent who can do no wrong (or at least the one on whom we feel most dependent) becomes the first idealized "Public Figure"--the first "hero" for the child who, if they cannot yet be such a hero themselves, can at least find safety and belonging in his or her good graces by being a loyal and obedient "follower". This situation is usually made more complex in that often which ever parent is not awarded this positive hero public image gets to carry the negative "bad cop" or "villain" role. Indeed the "hero" imprint will often arise precisely from the dynamics of feeling "rescued" from one parent by the other (though I don't think the one-sided public figure problem changes any when both parents happen to be idealized or both vilified since, among other things, in that case other adults usually become the "bad guys"). There is also the fact of sibling (and later "peer group) dynamics which however, in the absence of any actual maturity in the participants, can only vary the game of who gets to be the stand in leader/parent/good guy public image role, who gets to "follow" this "hero", who gets to be the "bad guy" and who is kicked out of the game all together. I am not sure that this exhausts the possibilities, but you get the picture.

One can also see the elements of the beginning of competition here, in that the object of such sibling or peer group games in time becomes deciding which of the players will be assigned which of these roles, with the Hero being the same as the "Winner" of course...see footnote.

All of this is understandable in infanthood and childhood because an infant or child by definition lacks the maturity, insight, detachment, perspective, sophistication (and education) to see their parents as simply imperfect "individual-persons" suffering from a sick culture like themselves and everybody else. They are pretty much forced by cognitive limitations to experience everything in a more or less, cartoon, simplistic, almost mythological manner. And of course in such a culture as ours, the sad case is that the parents themselves will also lack the full development of most of these things, though usually to a lesser degree than their children.

Under such circumstances it should not be surprising that such dynamics underly the political and social "games people play" as pseudo adults, which fact accounts for the simplistic one-sided public image of the Leader/Parent/Hero and the negatively one-sided public image of the villain,"criminal", or bad guy. It also accounts for the equally phony and one-sided positive public image of the "in-group" of followers of the "right" leader(s) who like wise exchange their authenticity for the pseudo-belonging of membership in that group (the price of which is a tacit agreement not only to ignore and repress, or downplay the leaders piece of the Lie but in large part their own as well, usually projecting all evil on "the bad guy" and his or her, it or their deluded followers).

Its worth emphasizing here that all of this one-sidedness has its emotional origins not only in the trauma of extremely one-sided feelings of aversion (fear), abandonment, and alienation experienced by every infant and child, but in the further cognitive development by which the child's first phony identity (as a "good" or "bad" boy or girl in good graces with the parent/¨hero¨) begins to be founded on such experiences, which constitutes a first self-betrayal of their (good and bad and good/bad-transcending) authentic individual selves. This betrayal of authentic experience of self and other in exchange for at least a convincing substitute for real, safety, acceptance and belonging (and for the corresponding diminishment of at least the acute experience of unbearable fear and pain), is the template one which later phony Public images are developed.

The implications of this development of, and enslavement to, a phony one-sided persona and self-image, and the listing and discussion of all of the contributing factors to it are much too much to go into here, though i would like to briefly mention in passing the unhealthy kinaesthetic patterns that come from the compulsive or reactionary holding of ourselves in postures which trap us in an alienated relationship to gravity and cut us off from the effortless and elegant working of our own bodies, as these are not usually understood as resulting in large part from the trauma and stress of "posing" as a "good or bad boy or girl" (and later as a "cool", ¨sexy¨ or "successful" ¨man¨ or ¨woman¨) in exchange for what we accept as belonging and love.

All of the above will be gone into further in future posts, but what I am really bring all of this up for right now is to go into how all of it relates to my efforts to communicate and share my ideas about and experiments in, healthy culture in this blog (which is after all a kind of "Publication" and as such exposes me to the some version of the "public image" game).

What I struggle with of course is the fact that, if i want to get anybodies attention (even if its just to point out the childishness, and lose-lose nature of the simplistic, competitively one-sided and phony public image game, and to offer an alternative to it), I have to risk entering that very game (at least in the minds of those who cannot help but play the game them selves). In other words, just to communicate, in the dominant sick culture I have to risk being projected upon as a leader or hero or as an equally phony member in good standing of the "right group of followers or even (if more of a sibling thing is going on) the right elite group of co-leaders.

In order to escape being caught in such a "positive" one-sided and phony public image I have often been tempted to focus intensively and exclusively own my own many pieces of the Lie and post that (I've made many drafts of "blog confessions" of this kind). Obviously though, doing such a thing would not actually challenge the one-sided and childish immaturity behind the whole dynamic but just lead to my assuming a negative public image in the minds of those who were previously being one-sided and silly in the other extreme. Just as bad, such an "act of courageous defiance" might strengthen me as a real Hero in the minds of people in whom this whole dynamic is more sophisticated then usual but nevertheless equally unhealthy beside the point.

What makes all of this even more complicated is the fact that I do still suffer from sick culture myself and am of course therefore susceptible under the right conditions (though I thinks these conditions would be pretty unusual), to any and all of the above forms of phoniness (or to any other form for that matter). I could very well be drawn into some kind of phony "public leadership" role (which silly "rise" would inevitably lead to an equally silly "fall" in the typical tragic hero manner). Moreover, I do have moments of Shame regarding some of the sick culture that I have been, continue to be (and in some cases probably always will be) involved in simply because I, like everyone else was born and initiated into sick culture and am susceptible to its one-sidedness and alienation. This Shame I speak of is of course itself just another manifestation of that sick culture; of the part of me that buys into one-sided expectations of righteousness and the brief and empty thrill of false acceptance and solidarity that goes alone with all of that. All of which is just to affirm that I myself have a piece of the Lie and a piece of the Truth and that there are conditions (some of which I don't know and some of which I do) during which the former (in this case in the form of a susceptibility to public image and the Shame that goes along with that) would manifest more than the latter. I am not sure if I feel ashamed of this Shame but I guess I still feel somewhat guilty for it, which makes just as little sense (but is just as understandable...).

It occurs to me that in writing this I could still be making some kind off underhanded or unconscious bid for "public approval" rather than making, from one individual-person to another, the appeal to adulthood good sense, goodwill, and living friendship that I think I am making, so I suppose I should say something a little more explicit just to make sure.

The Idea with all of these blog entries of mine is really just to start a conversation that leads to us comparing notes about what is going on in the world and in ourselves with an eye to doing something healing together about both these things (ourselves and the world) at the same time. For the most part, despite my previous "confession", I really am interested in Friendship rather than "public Leadership", and this means to me an inner and outer dynamic of listening, support, and challenge and not any kind of rigidly unilateral dynamics or hierarchies. So far as I can tell, my general understanding is appropriate (tentatively Good, True, Beautiful, Alive,) but a big part of my reason for sharing it is that I know that I could be wrong about this and want to be corrected if I am. (Even I am not corrected, as far a I am concerned, the Theory of Healthy Culture will always be a "Tentative Universal", always susceptible to challenge and alteration either in whole or in part, otherwise it would not be Alive...

So the invitation is something like this:

Lets stop seeing ourselves as leaders and followers with public/private self/other images and just be individual-persons trying to befriend and heal ourselves, each other and the world from the sick culture of apartness, alienation, phoniness, competition etc that we All suffer from, and lets try to nurture the living healthy culture that is also within us all. Lets see what we can do to create a culture of true friendship and adulthood that would begin to transform and heal sick culture inside and outside us. Rather than collude with (or against) each other in complacent in-group self-rightousness, lets create an open circle of listening, support, challenge and inner and outer healing in the egalitarian, compassionate, paradoxical (and somewhat ¨comic¨) spirit of living friendship. This blog and my other writings amount to my notes about possible ways and reasons to do that...What are your Notes? What do you think? Lets compare notes and discuss the whole issue critically and in good faith. And if we can get some tentative agreement, lets collaborate further.

Now I am not sure that this message and its implied disclaimer (a disclaimer that disclaims inferiority as well as of superiority mind you) is really getting through in a primary way. Maybe some of my posts sound more righteous and dogmatic and less tentative then they should (I am dealing in many cases with universals, but hopefully it is at least clear by now that these are always offered as tentative universals rather than rigid dogmas)... I can't really get behind the Socratic thing of pretending I have no opinion or ideas about things (as if this were really possible with anybody), and that has always seemed annoyingly phony to me. Its always seemed better just to be explicit about ones diagnosis and prescription and be open to challenge. But that openness to challenge extends to critiques about the way I am going about expressing myself as well as what I am expressing so feel free to give feedback about that too.

Welcome and Thanks,

--I-P

{footnote: I think its worthwhile going into the effect of competition (as a regression to this unconsciously childish game of who gets the phony role of "hero"/winner, and who has to wear the equally phony one of "villain"/loser), on what should be adult discourse. I say this since I think it is the main reason for the future-diminishing dynamics between persons, nations, parties, religions,etc.., during disagreements or negotiations which otherwise would lead to the finding of the common ground and consensus necessary for cooperation rather than coercion. I'm mean, if the subtext of the discussion is really to find out who is the hero/insider/good guy/good boy and who is the villain/outsider/bad guy/bad boy, then the real common ground of unpredictably fallible (and unpredictably "virtuous") human individual-personhood is pretty much excluded at the outset by the implied rules of the game, and with it the possibility of a resolution without shaming. Such an underlying subtext insures that the outcome of the discussion will never reflect the real truth of either the specific or general situation. Since the implication of my "winning" the discussion is that I have no "piece of the Lie" (or at least none worth paying attention to), and your losing forces you to "admit" that you have no "piece of the truth" with the same qualification, the result of the game can never lead to either of our growth into mature self-aware adults since it precludes the possibility of any realization that can lead to such growth from the very outset. (compromise almost never has to do with any such realization or growth, but is usually just an unsatisfying expedient born of exhaustion).

Moreover since the final result of such a game can never be True ( and so really Fair, since ultimately Fairness is inherently related to Truth), there is, deep down, no reason to think that "Fairness" has any thing to do with the game at all--the point really being just to win by any means necessary (in order not to have to relive those horrible infant and childhood feelings of "Badness", abandonment, vulnerability, rejection etc...),and so by the only means that the game allows, which is forcing that experience on ones competitor. The fact that such dynamics underly the structure and functioning of basically all our social political, economic, social, religious, and international institutions and discourse obviously does not bode well for that realization of a better future which is the primary preoccupation of actual adults (as opposed the ubiquitous psychological children and adolescents posing to themselves and each other as adults in "Public"--and Private-- life..)}

P.S. I suppose one could say that there is a kind of "legitimate leadership" which is based on spontaneous group consensus (at a given time in a given situation) that this or that person happens to know what is happening and what to do about it, and that there need not be any fear, coercion of sick culture involved in this. I acknowledge the phenomenon but decline to call it "leadership" since that word connotes for me a relatively static role and creates expectations beyond the actual moment of authentic collective consensus....in my experience it tempts people into a premature laxity or deferral of responsibility and critical, creative thinking. In such a way the circulation of attention, expectation, inspiration and creativity of a group can be short circuited (as it can by the rigidity of the groups boundaries itself). The speed at which an individual or groups piece of the Truth can be replaced by their piece of the Lie makes the individual or shared role of Leader misleading enough in its connotations for me to think it unnecessary most of the time.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Individual-Personhood

On Individual Personhood

So as I have written, healthy culture (which is a sort of "tentative universal") involves a definition of culture as comprising Cosmology, Identity, Ritual, and Infrastructure. When a given culture is healthy (is healing), then the accent is on versions of these four things that privilege togetherness over apartness. An Identity-Politics of Togetherness for example would be an "Us and Us" identity politics rather than any of the current factional and alienating "identity-uniforms" based on race, class, gender, nationality, or even species.

So my Name I-P (Its really intended to be more of a generically egalitarian "title"--or "anti-title", ultimately replacing Mr, Mrs, Sir, etc...), means "Individual-Person" and Individual-Personhood is my suggestion for what would constitute a non-factional Identity-Politics consistent with the Cosmology, Ritual, and Infrastructure of a healthy culture. Identifying as an individual person probably sounds so self-evident as to be hardly necessary to mention, but of course I mean something very specific (though I think very defensible and non-arbitrary) by the term.

Individual (Inner Relationship)	Person (Outer Relationship)	Time Orientation
Mind	Citizen-of-the-World	Future
Heart	Neighbor	Past
Body	Family-Member	Present
Intuition	Soul	Eternity

The preceding table (which will probably appear in the same or more elaborate form through-out this blog, is supposed to more or less say it all (and so save me from a long explanation) but I think it will probably need at least a little elaboration. What follows then is the major part of an old post of mine explaining individual-personhood in the context of my decision to change my name and call myself I-P. There is much more to it than what I say below but it seems like as good an introduction as I am up to right now. more later of course:

I-P (Name-Change)

If anybody reads my profile they will know that I am trying to transcend factional Identity politics such as race and gender, religion, among other things. For a long time now I have been dissatisfied both with my birth names and with the ones i have chosen for myself since. If anyone goes to my lifedancelog.motime.com blog and scrolls down to the post entitled “a vision of names” they will read a story in which I asked “Spirit” for a new name and actually received 3. Unfortunately I haven't had inner consensus to use them openly, wanting to make the sharing of such a names a sort of mark of bonding between myself and others who have received names in a similar way.

I still don't have inner consensus (of mind, heart, body, and soul) to share my new names but I do have it, after another “Vision Dance” (the particular kind of ritual at which I received the names alluded to) to replace, where ever I can, the various faction-connoting names I have chosen for myself in the past.

I-P stands for “Individual-Person” and perhaps is more like a title such as “Mr” or “Mrs”, than an actual name. But as such it is a very different kind of title (almost an “anti-title) in that it affirms an identity and an Identity politics that Transcends race, gender, even species, together with any other kind of factional identification of Class or Profession or anything else. It is an identity politics that, among other things, affirms the paradoxical equality and primary togetherness of all Beings.

The “individual” part of individual personhood represents the “vertical”, “self-directed” aspect of the Identity; it relates roughly to ones own experience of ones self in terms of ones own “thinking (mind), Feeling(heart) , sensation( body), and intuition (“soul” in a certain sense) to use a somewhat Jungian vocabulary.

The “Person” part of individual-personhood relates to the “horizontal”, “Other-directed” aspect of Identity in terms of the generic archetypal “social roles” that I affirm to be inherent in anyones Existence at all. These roles (which also constitute four venues of social interaction) are four fold: Family-member (the Familial venue), Neighbor (the neighborly venue), Citizen-of-the-World (the Civil venue) and “Soul” (for lack of a better word, the Religious/Philosophical/Metaphysical venue).

These two identities (the individual and the personal) are related paradoxically in the same way that the vertical and horizontal of spacial orientation (and so the five directions) are related. This means that they are not really two separate identities at all but one five-fold identity. in a same way that horizontal “north, south, east, and west” (the 4 “horizontal” directions) imply and involve “up-and-down” (what I am calling the vertical 5th direction) of spacial orientation, so the “Personal” implies the “Individual” and visa versa, and fulling ones potential as one involves fulfilling it as the other at the same time. Of course having a been initiated by default into the one-sided, paradox and Life-denying logic and sensibility of the present and historical cultures of apartness, we all tend to take for granted and for real and experience of that corresponds to this alienation of inner and outer social existence and so must of us have fallen prey to political implications (basically war in one form or another) that proceed from such false dichotomy and false consciousness.

As an example of this, I want to go a little bit here into one of the effects sick culture has on Identity-politics in our modern version of the culture of apartness. This is that, since the kind of paradoxical togetherness involved in Individual-Personhood is (like paradox in general) hard to even understand in a sick culture let alone live out, what has happened in our politics is that an experience of ourselves that is essentially a paradoxical “both/and” sort of thing vis-a-vis the individual and the “community” (self and other), has been broken apart, dichotomised and so treated as if it were essentially “either/or”.

In our time the Capitalist side of such dichotomization is the ideological mythology about some one-sided and dissociated and atomized conception of “the individual” that is in almost complete denial of the relationships and responsibilities inherent in anyones existing at all (i.e. of what i am calling the four roles/ venues of “personhood”). Even internally (and not coincidentally) the capitalist idea of an “individual” is dissociated, since it involves the priviledging of the “Thinking function” (over feeling, sensing, intuiting) within the the whole of our subjective individual experience. This of course lead to endless alienation, anxiety, lonilness, competition, etc... and ultimate individual and collective suicide.

On the other hand, more traditional, “socialistic” or “communistic” (but equally one-sided) forms of Identity go to the opposite extreme in enslaving the real whole “Individual” to some equally distorted conception of “personal” (social) relationships and responsibilities. These can be anything from Kinship or Gender roles, to the roles of “citizens” (narrowly and nationalistically defined), to various career or employment roles, all of which inevitably demand that the “individual” suppress or distort aspects of their individuality to fit such factional and misconceived and one-sided identity-uniforms. Of course this, via in a way that is only superficially different, also leads to endless alienation, anxiety, loneliness, competition, etc... and ultimate individual and collective suicide.

Anyway, what it means to actually and fully live the paradoxical relatively “themless” identity politics an individual-person within the context of the assumptions of a healthy culture is some thing that I'd have no time to describe here even if I was not still in the process of learning this myself, but I do know and have time to say that “coming-out” as an “individual-person” involves an implicit and explicit renunciation of the kind of false solidarity that comes from the normal “us-and-them” way of bonding (that is of “us” bonding against “them”, whether the “thems” are other creatures, other genders, or other so-called “classes” of any kind. It also involves a conscious acceptance of the implicit responsibility of healthy coming-together, not only outwardly with others (as a responsible “Family-member”, “Neighbor”, “Citizen-of-the-World” and “Soul”) but also inwardly as an authentic Individual.

Of course I'm not likely to ever be permanently cured from “back-sliding” into old, alienated, ways of thinking and feeling, about myself and others since the habits of forty years cannot be expected to change overnight even when there are some new habits to exchange them for (as is the case here). My name change here is just an affirmation and reminder of my intention to go in this direction and of my commitment to it .

Finally, as I said, I currently regard “I-P” as a kind of “title”. If, in the future I do get inner consensus to share the three names I was given. Then I will formally adopt them and be “I-P so-and so”. For now, I will just be “I-P”.

PS,

There is some insight into all of this kind of factional identity politics from the song “uniforms” which is among my myspace blogs. So I quote the text of it here:

Uniforms
By I-P

You wear a uniform of a woman
You wear a uniform of a man
You wear a uniform of an employee
Or a Jew or a Mexican
You wear a uniform of a soldier boy
A uniform of a civilian too
And when you play the game of “me or them”
You wear a uniform of you!

Chorus:

Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!
Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!

You wear a uniform of a bourgeoisie
A uniform of a working class
You wear a uniform of Humanity
When the Martians come at last
You wear a uniform of your politics,
Your race and your religion too,
But if you want peace in the world my friend
This is my advice to you:

Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!
Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!

Well I'm talkin' about your identity
I'm talkin bout your foolish pride
And the fear and insecurity
That scares you into takin' sides
'cause everybody is the same and different,
Butt-ugly and beautiful as any star,
And if you take off all of them uniforms
Maybe you'll find out who the hell you are!

Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!
Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!

You wear a uniform of an anarchist
You wear a uniform of a wife
You wear a uniform for every thing you do
And for every part of your life
But there's no uniform for Personhood
Or for authenticity
So if you're uptight and uncomfortable
Take this advice from me:

Chorus:

Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!
Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!

It's us it's us it all of us so please come off of it
It's us is us its all of us; this is “Themless” politics
It's us it's us it's all of us good-and-evil, healthy-and-sick
It's us it's us it's all of us: this is “Themless Politics”!

Chorus:

Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!
Ohh, my friends, take off those uniforms!

{comment: of course there is certainly a sense in which Individual-Personhood can be regarded as itself an "Identity-uniform" if something that is so inherently inclusive, paradoxical, and "Themless" can be so described. If so, so be it; let us call it a "uniform of togetherness"; an affirmation an intrinsically shared theme admitting of endless variation but, nevertheless as with all uniforms or identities, implying equally shared and intrinsic relationships and responsibilities. As I will elaborate elsewhere, these relationships and responsibilities all have to do with Cointregration, Conference and Communion.

Also I want to at least mention here that to identify as a recovering "Alienated-Phony" (or to be more parallel since "Phoniness" is the opposite of authentic Individuality and "Alienation" is the opposite of Personhood, a "Phony-Alien") goes hand in had with identifying as an individual-person. That is, to affirm Individual-Personhood is only to become an "Alienated-Phony in Recovery" rather than being such in Denial. It is to acknowledge both the sick culture one continues to suffer from as well as the healthy culture one is trying to cultivate. But more of this is an forthcoming post.--I-P}

Healthy Culture: Cointegrative Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Further Introduction

Because of Blogger's build-in space limitations, I had to keep whittling down my usual "about me" section, almost to the point of misleading over simplification. In this post I am publishing the full text of what I wanted to put in that space:

About me 1:

“Truth is the First casualty of War. It is also the first condition of Peace”

“Everybody has a piece of the Truth and every body has a piece of the Lie.”

—I-P Kerren Odori

We all live in, are infected by, and suffer from, a sick Culture of Apart-ness, of Alienation. This culture, like all culture is comprised of Cosmology, Identity, Ritual, and Infrastructure. In the case of the dominant culture this means; a Cosmology of Apart-ness, an Identity-Politics of Apart-ness, Rituals of (inner and outer) Apart- ness, and Infrastructures of Apart-ness. Education (formal and informal) is the transmission of culture, and in our case it is the transmission of this sick culture. The factional political paradigms or our time (including those based on race, gender, class, political party, nationality, even species) are all symptoms of, rather than cures for, this condition of sick culture. As such, none of them have any potential at all for changing anything that matters in any sustainable way. We have no time for this.

Since sick culture is the problem, it follows that Healthy Culture is the solution. So what is Healthy Culture and how does it manifest on the collective, political Level? Glad you asked. This question is explored on my two blogs: Healthy Culture: Cointegrative Science (cointegrative.blogspot.com) and Lifedancelog (lifedancelog.blogspot.com). There I write of an extremely small, but vital and replicable, Cultural Pilot Project that is currently being attempted (unsuccessfully so far) in the cultural microclimate of Twin Oaks Intentional community in Virginia involving the practice of Healthy Culture; its cosmology of Togetherness (Cointegrative Science), its Identity-Politics of Togetherness (Individual-Personhood), it’s Rituals of Togetherness (Life-Dance rituals) and its Infrastructure of Togetherness.

About Me 2:

I suppose the most salient thing I could say about me as an individual is the following: For me, being in this world has always been like coming into a restaurant and discovering gang rape happening in the middle of the room, and then looking around and discovering further that all the other customers seem to be still trying to “make the best of things” and “enjoy their evening” (if this simile fails it is mostly because what is happening in the world is, for the most part more, rather than less criminally stupid and obscene than a gang rape).

Later on I realized that the “rape” only seems to me to be happening in the middle of the room. Evidently, for most people the scene is really going on off in a corner somewhere shielded both by a circle of Guards with sunglasses and prominently displayed weapons as well as by a screen put up by the restaurant owner to protect the sensibilities of his customers. I guess most people can barely hear the screams over the conversation and loud music. Nevertheless, this rape has always been for me the main and most obvious thing that was happening in the room and the whole idea of “making the best of it” and “enjoying my evening” has always seemed to me obscenely crass, even somewhat ghoulish, and at any rate basically impossible for me. There is no “best” to make of such a situation. The only decent and sensible thing has always seemed to me to be to consider that ones evening is simply “ruined” for the purposes of “private enjoyment” and resolve to spend the time (the rest of ones life i mean) trying to figure out what is really going on and how to stop it.

Now this is not to say that I have not been (and continue to be) temporarily distracted. Its just that the various mechanisms of “distraction maintenance” (drugs, alcohol, entertainment, consumption,”art” competition,”work”, the soap opera of “relationships” etc) have never caught on with me in such a way as to keep my mind and heart away from the main thing that is happening for very long at all. I suppose one or more of them might have done so if I'd “applied myself” but I have never been able to see the point in any of that, even from a purely selfish point of view. I mean to me, being fully alive means being fully responsive to what is really happening both inside and outside oneself, not being numb to it.

Anyway,the upshot of this quirk in my basic personality has been a long odyssey that began with an intuitive attempt to try to stay outside of the general situation myself and figure out what was going on before I just became a part of what was going on–-or more a part than I already was (I guess another rather unusual thing about me was that I was so clear that the confusion and stupidity going on outside of me was to some extent also going on inside of me as well). I therefor tried to stay more or less on the margins,politely ignoring the people who were winking at me, haling me from their tables and offering me martinis etc…, and trying, through all the smoke and noise, to get some useful insight into what was going on.

I was 24 or so before I began arrive at what seemed to me to be some useful and real answers. In the 20 years since then, I have gotten a lot more. These days, I have taken to calling this “main thing happening in the room” (well not only the rape but the whole situation inclusive of and enabled by everybody present in it) “sick culture”, and my life is basically about the co-creation of what I call “Healthy Culture” as a kind of cultural twelve-step program that is meant to be, not only an alternative to complete capitulation to the prevailing inner and outer craziness and lose-lose stupidity, but a long term cure for it.

There is a great deal to Healthy Culture (it is as simple and as complicated as Sick Culture), but the gist of it is in the two paragraphs of “About me1”. Please contact me if you have any comments, questions, criticisms, and/or desire to participate in this experiment and adventure in inner and outer healing. I-P


About my Blog:


Healthy Culture: Cointegrative Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Cointegrative Science

Note: this blog, which has been moved to Blogger from a previous site "Splinder", used to be called "Integrative Science". Since I don't seem to be able to incorporate the copyright info in the normal way I do so here:
Healthy Culture: Cointegrative Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. The following post explains the name change and, to some extent, the meaning of the new name.

About the Cointegrative:

The word "integrative", although it somewhat avoids the static association for me of the word "integral", has never been totally satisfying as a description of the theoritical/cosmological aspect of healthy culture because there is still a sort of unilateral association involved in the word. Corporate concepts such as "vertical integration" and even things like "integrative medicine" still preserve a kind of one-sided accumulative model of "A" integrates "B", "C", "D" etc, and this is not very related to what I have been meaning to convey all this time by the word "Integrative". What I have meant all along, as I described in the blog post introducing the term, is a bilateral/multilateral dynamic of Inner and Outer healing, with the root "integre" being understood in the same sense as the root "holos", which is the root of "Whole", "Holy", and (through "heal") of "Health". Thus I chose the word "Integrative" to describe the inclusive process of inner/outer healing as well as the assumption of the intrinsic primary togetherness of the inner and the outer generally.

I have recently decided that this is still too misleading, and that a better way to convey my meaning is by introducing the word "Co-integrative" (hyphen optional). I think the added prefix "co" successfully signals the primarily paradoxical, non-linear, and non-unilateral essence of the idea of inner/outer healing as an understanding, intention, and an activity, and so helps to point out the difference between this conception of wholeness and healing and other views associated with the term "integral or integrative".

Having googled the word to see if it was indeed a new coinage of mine I discovered, somewhat to my annoyance, that there is a bit of possible confusion between Cointegrative and the "Cointegration" of time series variables in, of all things, Mathematical Finance, so perhaps when I need to use that form of the word I will be careful to insert the hyphen so that it is clear what I am referring to. In most cases however I am sure context will take care of that. All in all I am quite happy with this change of name and don't expect I'll have to make such a change again, though, since the whole enterprise is intrinsically dynamic and evolving, one never knows.

I might as well take this time to express some ongoing doubts regarding the use of the word "Science" to describe the cosmology of healthy culture (as in "Cointegrative Science"). What I like about the term is its connoting of open, experiential, and critical inquiry, all of which are a part of what I have in mind. But the word "Science" ultimately has roots related (to quote an online etymology) "to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see "shed". Now the paradox involved in "Cointegrative seperation" or "Cointegrative division" is not as objectionable from the paradox-friendly point of view I am coming from as one might imagine. Such a point of view, because it is paradoxical, can integrate separation and devision when to do so can be seen to serve its Cointegrative purpose. Still, the above derivations continue to rankle somewhat, and while I have decided to keep the word "Science" as part of my description of what I think is an appropriate cosmology and epistemology of a healthy culture, this might change in the future. As it stands, to speak of "Cointegrative Philosophy", or "Cointegrative Cosmology", or some such, is just as accepatible , though these terms are both also problematic for various reasons.

Further comments on Science:

To further explain the critique of Science implied above and to further clarify the different between the assumptions informing it and the Science of Cointegrative Science, I thought I'd offer this slightly edited version of some my own remarks in a long online discussion I had a while back with someone devoted to logic and "The Scientific Method" as they are presently understood (or at least as this person understood them):

"....I gather (...) that for you the superiority of reason and the scientific method (about the nature of which, as I have said, there is already considerable philosophical disagreement) cannot be a dogma because of... what? Because of "peer review" or something? Because of the so called "success" of technology? Consider this analogy:

the Scientific method is like a method of finding out about and training dogs; science has "successfully" (by by its own criterion for success) gotten the dog "nature" to do a few tricks by its approach and its "dog-training" method and this is supposed to justify both the method itself and the world view that led to that method? I mean what if there are other and better ways to train a dog that come from a completely different approach? Ways that don't involve brutality, alienation, "adverse health side effects" etc? what if there are other and better ways to learn about a dog? What if there are better tricks to teach the dog which are not so harmful to the dog and ultimately to its trainers? What if "dog training" in general is a bad idea in the first place? You seem to be saying that somehow, through just repeating this method (whatever you think the details are) we will find out what the best attitude toward dogs is? That if we keep vivisecting the world in theory and practice for the sake of "exclusive control" over it, that sooner or later the truth about the alienation, and insanity of the whole project is going to come out of a test tube somewhere?

If your whole project is fundamentally misconceived, if sciences dictum that "Knowledge is Power" (Bacon) is just he latest version of "Right is Might" (an imminently, reversible equation both logically and psychologically), it's highly doubtful that one is going to learn otherwise by just continuing with normal science. For one thing, "Power" and "Control", act like drugs to an addict, intrinsically blinkering the individual and inhibiting his or her ability to use their critical faculties "outside the box" of the assumptions governing the addictive behavior in question. Maybe Knowledge is not Power; maybe Power as well as Exclusive Control are inwardly and outwardly harmful illusions. Maybe Knowledge is really healthy bi or multilateral Relationship ("Friendship" if you will), with nature with our bodies, with each other, and with death as a part of life. Maybe the world is better "known" in some other way than by cognitively vivisecting the living wholeness of the experienced world and then further interrogating, through experiment, the (now dying) pieces. For that matter maybe its better not to think of "Nature" or the objective world as a primarily separate thing from subjective experience; maybe there is a Shared Subjectivity or Shared Self that corresponds to the shared Objective world of Nature and maybe this shared Self is not fundamentally separate from our shared Nature any more than mind and body are fundamentally separate. After all primary experience itself consists of the togetherness of the subjective and the objective; of both the inner and the outer. Anyway, These are my views but my point here is not that they are true but that they imply a different attitude toward "the dog" and cannot be disproved by any tricks you can get the dog to do by following a method based on your own assumptions about dogs and dog training."

I hope its clear that the "Science" in "Cointegrative Science" is such a science of "Friendship/Relationship" and Inner/outer healing and not the alienated cognitively fragmented science I critique above, and that, rather than embracing the epistemological fascism of the dictum "Knowledge is Power-Over" (one might also call it a "rapist epistemology" given the the gist of other Baconian metaphors referencing Nature as feminine and considering as well the archaic meaning of the word "know" in patriarchal societies and what that must have often meant in practice*) the central dictum of Cointegrative Science might be described as "Knowledge is Power-with" ;Knowledge is co-empowerment, co-evolution, even as "friendship" in some sense.


{*footnote: It is difficult to reference political and social entities like Fascism, and Patriarchy without running the risk of strengthening someones notion that these things constitute the the whole of the disease of sick culture itself rather than being two of many other major symptoms that disease; a disease which we all suffer from, though perhaps with very different symptoms. Such a misunderstanding could only lead to the usual fragmented, dissociated, and misguided motivation and treatment regimen, the effecting of which can never have anything but temporary and unsustainable "success", even against the selected symptoms, and none at all against the underlying disease, which will only be strengthened by the whole dynamic. }