Transcend and Integrate

[Forestluv]

I feel inspired to write about the phenomena of transcending, integrating and their relationships. We could explore each as it's own realm. As well, we can explore relationships between the two. 

The below idea caught my attention. It was from @Snader in the "What is a Woman?" thread.

5 hours ago, Snader said:

Anyway in the discipline I'm in there is this mutual understanding that we cannot come to any absolute truths or all-explaining explanations. In the research it is always emphasized how the output is only explaining a little part of the phenomenon while more truthful picture requires a broader range of perspectives and methods that need to be integrated together. That's what I really like. 

 This is very "fertile" soil. There are many types of seeds we could plant and grow. This idea could be the start of a class within philosophy, biology, psychology, nonduality, Zen Buddhism, Shamanism or Quantum Mechanics. I'm actually going to 'integrate' this quote in my first day of my neuroscience course. 

We can create various relationships with the above concept. For example, there is a mindset that would step outside of the concept and theorize about the concept - adding more detail and/or expanding the edges. Another mindset would be operating within the concept. As well, we can combine the two mindsets. For example, we could describe a piano and keep adding details and components. As well, we could go within and play the piano. Both have value. . . And we could integrate the two: for example we could add / describe a new component, then play the piano and ask "Can you hear the impact our new component had on piano performance?"

Contracted mindsets have value, as does expanded mindsets - as does the integration between the two. Most mindsets tend to become contracted and rigid. By default, they perceive through a particular lens. This can have value in focusing cognition, increasing mental stability and making decisions. It reduces uncertainty and ambiguity. Yet it is also limited. It dives within "truth A". There is value in that, yet the price paid is that it doesn't integrate another "truth B" as well, it would be unable to synthesize the two "partial truths" into "truth C". . . Ime, most mindsets default to contracted mindsets - so I spend a lot of effort to expand minds. In the reverse situations (most minds default to expanded states), I would put a lot of effort into contracting minds. 

An example a contracted social construct that we default to involves expertise. The first day of my neuroscience class, I ask "What would an expertise of Schizophrenia look like". I then show the following images:

1. Chemical structures of neurotransmitters and a biochemist.

2. Neural networks and a neuroscientist and a neuroscientist.

3. A whole brain and an image of a psychiatrist.

4. An image of a psychologist discussing behavior of schizophrenia.

5. A social scientist addressing schizophrenia within the context of social structures and cultural norms.

6. A woman who has schizophrenia.

I briefly describe each and ask "Which one is an 'expert' in schizophrenia?". This question has no "right" or "wrong" answer. At first, the class feels like they must choose one and get uncomfortable. . . And that's the point. Each of the above is an "expert" in schizophenia in a different form. Each of those forms have value and there is value in diving deep into one of those forms and dismissing the others. For example, the biochemist may get hyper focused on the biochemistry of neurotransmitters and dismiss all the other forms. This contracted, zoomed-in mindstate could lead to breakthrough discoveries at the biochemical level that wouldn't be possible in a more holistic mindstate. Yet the understanding becomes limited to that "category". 

Now we relate to the original quote above. . . if a mind contracts within a perspective - something of value is gained, yet something is also lost. The biochemist would have difficulty relating the biochemical level to the societal level. How does the altered binding affinity of dopamine in someone with schizophrenia relate to the social dynamics of someone with schizophrenia living within a particular society? . . . We could get even more expansive. . . How does the biochemistry relate to various cultures and various cultural histories? . . . And even more expansive. . . How does the biochemistry of dopamine relate to historical interpretations of schizophrenia and how does that history relate contemporary psychological theories of schizophrenia? . . . As we expand further, more possibilities enter. There becomes less structure and detail. 

Most minds become specialized and dwell within one area. There is value in this as many discoveries come from highly-focused contracted mindstates. However, the mind is unaware (or unappreciative) of other forms of understanding. This is a barrier to communication (and one reason A.I. will become a high-level form of "cognition"). I have a biochemist colleague that is brilliant at the biochemical level (waaay beyond my level of understanding). Yet he lacks awareness and curiosity of other forms of understanding. (And there a various reasons for this).

As another example, I have a friend who is a brilliant psychologist. Yet our conversations can go very deep yet are within the realm of psychology. When we speak of mental conditions such as schizophrenia, she has a subconscious belief that there is a "normal" range of mindstate (of which she is within) and an "abnormal" mindstate that the "other" person with schizophrenia is within. She has brilliant psychological theories, yet lacks the direct understanding of what altered states of consciousness are 'actually' like. . . On many of my psychedelic trips, I entered "insanity zones" and now have an understanding of what "insane" mental states are like. As well how "abnormal" is also "normal". If I try to relate this to her, she keeps perceiving that through a psychological lens and contextualizes that within a psychological framework.

As well, an orientation of the mind limits fluidity and perspective (which has both upsides and downsides). For example, my psychologist is strongly oriented toward helping people overcome difficult mind conditions, such as PTSD, anxiety disorders and panic attacks. This has a lot of practical value; most people with uncomfortable states want to heal and "get better". Yet her mindstate also limits the "realms" she has access to. . . For example, last week I was with her and a friend who started about his recurrent anxiety. I was in a minspace of exploring the "essence" of anxiety. Like we could explore the "essence" of love or sacredness. There is no dynamic of "good" or "bad". There is no dynamic of "we need to heal and get past the anxiety". That mindset introduces a subconscious vibe that there is "something wrong" with your anxiety that we need to address and move beyond the anxiety so you can be a healthier person. . . That orientation has enormous value at the personal level, yet is also very limited. . . For example, I began speaking about the "essence" of anxiety, integrating my own experience. . . Speaking about the energetics of being on the edge of "spiraling down" and what that is 'actually' like.  As well, different forms of anxiety and how those forms interact with other feelings and social interactions. . . My psychologist friend had some overlap with this exploration, yet kept pulling toward psychological theories and healing. For example, she kept reoriented insights about the nature of anxiety to how we can use those insights for healing and moving forward. Again, there is a lot of value to that at the personal level, it's just a different "realm" that she is contracted within. 

Feel free to add any feelings, thoughts, insights or questions you may have about these ideas. 

[Forestluv]

Each of us have strong areas of cognition as well as deficiencies. My strongest area is related to possibilities and potential. "My" consciousness can keep going 'prior' until it reaches Source. We could also call 'Source' as 'Nothing', 'Everything' or 'Infinity'. For me, it was a journey of 30+ years. It involved a combination of genetics, personality, cultural immersion and psychedelics. As well, it involved interacting with key persons that were at a higher level than myself in a particular area.  . . Along the journey, some breakthroughs were extremely difficult and destabilizing to personal identity and a sense of controlling the narrative in one's mind. As well, there are trade-offs. There are things I can no longer do. 

In a mindspace of 'Nothing', the mind can see extraordinary amount of possibilities and potential. This mindspace is also very keen to seeing and understanding limitations, because it can go 'prior' to that limitation and see how it arises and how it blocks certain possibilities. 

Let's consider how assumptions and beliefs are limiting to the mind. If the mind assumes something is "true", "false", "right" or "wrong" - it creates a contracted mindspace with barriers. This can have practical value to the person, yet it also creates a lens of interpretation, which limits the mind. For example, on the forum there is a thread about the recent assassination attempt of Trump. There is a belief that it is "wrong" to assassinate someone and an underlying assumption that this belief is "true". This creates a lens that will interpret all information through a lens of "its wrong to assassinate someone". The point here is not whether it's right or wrong to assassinate someone. The point is to go prior to the belief that it is wrong to assassinate someone. This may sound simple, yet it is practically impossible for 99% of minds. 

Going prior to that belief allows the mind freedom of attachment to the primary belief as well as hundreds of associated beliefs. It allow the mind to see various perspectives and the ability to create new forms of modeling. For example, the mind can create models of assassination that integrate ideas from history, psychology, sociology and biology. This is a form of Systems Thinking. It is a higher level of System Thinking because the mind is not forced to interpret everything to fit a preconceived system of beliefs.  

For the mind to create an intricate construct, it must cut off other possibilities. This applies to both creations of art and creations of intellect. In the context of creating intellectual constructs, the mind must have stable underlying structure to build upon. At times, it must accept assumptions about meaning and object truth. At times, it must disregard relativity and other possibilities. 

[Forestluv]

Some things are very difficult to transcend when the person / mind / body is experiencing it. For example, it's very difficult to transcend anger while experiencing anger. It's hard to 'go above' the experience as a detached, curious observer. There is a form of understanding here that can't be attained while not angry and simply conceptualizing about dynamics of anger. 

In only feel pure anger about once every two months. I had that opportunity to experience anger an hour ago and still under its effect. An  hour ago, I was teaching a laboratory class of 20 students. Four students were at each table working on a research project. One of those tables has a student that is very reclusive (referred below as the "central student". He has an odd vibe that I haven't quite encountered before. I felt neutral to it at first, yet it shifted today. He is passively dismissive and his sneakiness irritates me. The other students at the table started dismissing my suggestions - they may have been empowered by the central student and a sense of power by subtly dismissing the instructions / suggests of a professor. Then things elevated. . . each time I left their table they started giggling / laughing and I knew the central student was mocking me each time I left the table. One time as I left, I quickly turned around and 3 of the 4 students looked surprised and uncomfortable - as if they got caught doing something wrong. Yet not the central student. This is part of his character. . . I didn't see what he actually did. I returned to the table and asked "What's going on?". The central student replied "You weren't supposed to see that". There was no indication he was remorseful, which seemed to confirm this aspect of his character. He seems to be a reclusive, mild-mannered person that mocks / undercuts others behind their back and corrupts others around him to do the same. . . . My mind-body was flooded with anger, yet I tried to stay composed. I acknowledged that they did some good work during class, yet I also said "And there is something going on under the hood. . . ". . . I then paused and was about to go off. Then I said "I'll leave it at that" and walked away. . . In part, because I didn't clearly see the mockery. 

A few minutes later, I stood there filled with anger and realized "This is a good opportunity to observe these dynamics" - because they were actually happening. I got to observe the interaction of dismissiveness, lack of respect, mockery, personalizing and energetics of anger. For example, I got curious: "How much of the anger is my body is due to *me* feeling dismissed, mocked, disrespected and how much of the anger is me not liking that behavior in general? . . . It's a form of sneaky passive aggressiveness toward another. As well as corrupting others by encouraging their darker sides. Further, this wasn't directed at some jerk who "deserves it". I'm working my ass off trying to help him learn and succeed in college. My overall sense is that this type of behavior irritates me, yet the irritation was greatly intensified because it was directed at *me*.

As well, I got a sense of what successful women have to go through. As a male professor, this type of behavior is rarely directed at me. Yet I imagine it's commonly directed at female professors (as well as other successful women). 

I also experienced a desire to grade the student more harshly - which would also be a form of passive aggressiveness. Its interesting that I wanted to respond to his passive aggressive form of power with my own form of passive aggressive power. 

I'm now asking "What would a higher state of consciousness look like"? Another perspective that appears: I think this student may be skilled in certain areas. He's come up with some very good ideas for his project. I think he may have some potential, yet this behavior may interfere with reaching his potential. I'm very motivated to help others reach their potential. So I could re-align and I may tell him that I see a lot of potential in him, and I could be a resource for him if he chooses. I'm not quite sure how to exactly frame it yet.