A quick look at the entertainment world – books, movies, songs, fairy tales, mythology – tells us that we are fascinated with the unpleasant.

Why is that? I can find several reasons for why I am drawn to it….

The most obvious is that these things (death, pain, cruelty etc.) are part of human life, and this is a way for me to get familiar with it in a safe way. I get to explore it without putting myself at risk. And I get to prepare for it should it happen to me or someone close to me. If or when something like it happens in real life, I am already somewhat familiar with it.

(more…)

There is a pitifully small band of wolves in Norway, and still some folks are afraid and want them killed.

It seems so thoroughly idiotic. No human has been killed by wolves in recorded history. The few sheep that are killed are generously compensated for by the government.

And we chose and accept far greater risks all the time, for instance every time we use a car, or use toxic chemicals in our homes or in the yard, or allow bees and wasps in nature (a significant number dies each year from stings). Most obviously, we chose and accept far greater risks through how we organize ourselves as a society, in ways that are not aligned with ecological realities (ecological footprints way over what the Earth can support, economical models and policies that ignore embeddedness in ecosystems, huge gaps between rich and poor, and so on).

(more…)

Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow (America’s Evolutionary Evangelists) have published a new, as always excellent, podcast. Among other things, they talk about Blasphemy Day and ways of relating to religious fundamentalists.

There are many ways to relate to fundamentalists, and as usual, these are all mirrors for ourselves. We can find it here, in our own daily lives and right here & now.

(more…)

It is quite common to hear people say they are sensitive to the energy of others. It may be especially noticeable – and sometimes uncomfortable – in close quarters with others over time, and if the others have relatively strong internal conflicts going on. I notice it mostly on the train or bus, and I know many others notice it – among other times – when giving bodywork.

There are lots of ways to work with this. Visualize a cocoon around oneself. Working on grounding. Visualize roots down the earth. Visualize clarity. Pray for the other and yourself. Visualize healing for both of you. And so on. All of these may work fine to some extent and for a while, but they won’t work completely or always because they are just alleviating the symptoms.

When I explore this for myself, I find that the discomfort I experience has one source, and that is my own beliefs about what is going on. Here too, I find that the discomfort I experience comes from friction between my stories of what should be and what is.

(more…)

Some people and situations are especially good projection objects. They express qualities we are not in touch with in ourselves, characteristics outside of our conscious identity. So when we see it in others, it fascinates us. We may even be caught up in blind attractions and aversions to just those qualities, expressed in these people and situations.

Michael Jackson is a good example. His genius for music, dance, image and marketing gave him attention, and in itself made him a good project. Add eccentricity and scandals that never were resolved, and you have an irresistible and explosive mix.

(more…)

I watched Letters From Iwo Jima earlier tonight. As one of two movies about the same battle, this one from the Japanese perspective, it is a great example of post-modernist approaches going mainstream. Why show just one perspective, when there are – at least – two major ones, and then several perspectives within each of those? 

(more…)

Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is (himself) completely deficient.
Gospel of Thomas, verse 67.

This can be seen as referring to projections.

What I see in the world says more about me than the world. In a conventional sense, it says a lot about me and little about the world. In a real sense, it says all about me and nothing about the world.

(more…)

Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the cornerstone.
- Gospel of Thomas, verse 66.

Again, there are many ways to look at this. And maybe the simplest is that it refers to what we are.

(more…)

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.
- Gospel of Thomas, verse 70.

Some simple ways of looking at this…

(more…)

Something I keep noticing….

When I feel a need to defend against a story, it is because it doesn’t fit with stories – and their corresponding viewpoints and identities – that I take as true. It creates a sense of having to protect and defend certain viewpoints and identities. A sense of separation. Tension. Stress. Reactive emotions. Precariousness. Making some stories true and other false. Making others wrong and myself right. 

When I instead find the truth in the story and allow it to sink in, there is a shift. I find specific examples of how it is true. I take time to feel it. I find appreciation for it. And there is a shift into a sense of fullness. Coming home. Receptivity. Curiosity. Connection. Deep relaxation. No need to defend stories. A sense of shared humanity, of all of us in the same boat. 

(more…)

Here is a shadow-quickie.

I notice an aversion/attraction to somebody/thing in daily life, find the specific quality that brings it up, and then tell myself:

I am somebody who …

I am somebody who is a loser. I am somebody who is loud. I am somebody who is inconsiderate. I am somebody who is insane. I am somebody who is ugly. I am somebody who is angry. (Aversions.) I am somebody who has elegance. I am somebody who is smart. I am somebody who is clear. I am somebody who is friendly. (Attractions.)

I find at least three specific examples of how it is true in my own life. Times when I lived those qualities.

And I then take time to feel it. To let it sink in, get a bodily felt sense of being somebody who has those qualities. Taking time to allow my self image to reorganize to include this too, in a real and genuine way.

If I need to, I can do the same with the reversals of those qualities. In that way, I find both here now, and there is a freedom from both.

This simple practice probably works best if I have experience with projection work already, for instance from The Work.

The effects are often quite noticeable. From being caught up in aversions and attractions, and not immediately finding it in myself, there is a shift.

The world becomes a mirror, what is out there is also right here now. Tension melts. A sense of separation melts. There is a sense of fullness and wholeness. A sense of coming home. Of being complete here now. Spaciousness in all directions. I experience myself differently.

And then appreciation for those qualities, because they so clearly are part of the wholeness of who I am. Recognizing them here now, and feeling them here now, is the gateway into finding that wholeness. There is an allowing of them, an appreciation for them, a kindness towards the qualities and those expressing them (all of us including myself), even a love for them.

So I see these qualities right here, through specific examples of how they are expressed in my life. I take time to feel them here now, allowing my self-image to reorganize to include them. And from here, there is a sense of wholeness and gratitude for the qualities and the process.

I can find wholeness as who and what I am.

As who I am, this human self, I can find wholeness by noticing here what I see in the wider world. I can see, feel into and eventually find appreciation for it, whatever it is. The world is my mirror.

And when what I am notices itself, I find that there is already a wholeness there. It is that which all happens within and as.

To the extent I find the first form of wholeness, there is less neediness, less looking for something to complete me, less being caught up in attractions and aversions. This is an ongoing process before and within what I am noticing itself.

Life as is invites such a reorganization, it invites us to grow up. And when what I am notices itself, the invitation is even more pronounced.

(more…)

There is a panel discussion of some sort, and I am in the panel. At some point, the others share their impressions of me and these are not very favorable. I am mortified. 

(more…)

Some layers of giving someone the benefit of the doubt…

There is a generosity in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. There is receptivity and an open heart here.

(more…)

Here is a slight variation on a common topic…

Our stories create a limited identity for us, and to the extent we identify with it, we are at odds with reality.

There is an identity to justify, defend and prop up. Someone may see something in us that doesn’t fit, and we feel a need to defend against it. Or our human self may do something that doesn’t fit, and we feel a need to defend our identity there too. We are at odds with life as it is, and there is a sense of drama and struggle.

So whenever this happens, it is a great opportunity to notice our identification with a particular identity. We take the offended identity as true, but what is more true for us? What do I find when I explore it for myself.

Someone may say “you are …” (fill in the blank). I notice a reaction to it, a movement to defending an identity, and this is a sure sign that I identify with and take a story as true. There may be stress. Tension. Hurt. Defensiveness. Reactiveness. Getting caught up in stories.

And I can meet and explore this in different ways. I can allow and meet the experience, and the fear behind it. I can notice the belief behind it, and find what is more true for me. I can feel and see the characteristic in me, as a part of my human wholeness, and our shared humanity.

In each case, what I find is that behind the initial reaction, there is pure gold. I find another piece of my lost wholeness as a human being. I am released out of a false – and too narrow – identity. I find another aspect of our shared humanity right here. I experience more of the fullness of who I already am.

If I get caught up in defending the threatened identity, all the usual things happen. A sense of stress. Tension. Conflict. Separation. (To myself and others.) Getting caught up in obsessive thoughts. Hurt. And more than that, I miss out of pure gold. I miss out of finding a previously excluded piece of my own wholeness.

The only problem is that most of the time, I don’t know what people think about me. They just don’t tell, at least not if it is anything they see as unfavorable. I miss out of the gold because it doesn’t happen that often. So what can I do?

Fortunately, there is a way around it. I can use any statement that comes my way, no matter who or what it is about and where it comes from (including my own thoughts), and turn it around to myself.

How is it true for me? Can I find it right here? What happens when I inquire into the beliefs and identities preventing me from feeling and seeing it in my human self? What happens when I allow myself to feel and see it right here?

Whatever statement comes up, I can turn it around to find it in myself.

This process leads to a healing and maturing of who I am, as this human self. And it releases identification out of stories, which makes it easier for what I am to notice itself.

It is pure gold, so why wait?

(more…)

The former Republican vice presidential nominee told reporters in Anchorage that a recent Fox News report — which cited unnamed campaign sources as saying she did not know Africa was a continent and could not name the countries involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement — was false, and that her comments were taken out of context.

“That’s cruel. It’s mean-spirited. It’s immature. It’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news. It’s not fair and not right,” Palin told CNN in an interview.

- Source: LA Times

Hm… Let’s see. Who was it that made a big point out of the connection between Obama and Ayers? Who took things out of context? Who tried to spread it on national news?

(And who was it that used a certain plumber to discredit Obama’s tax policy, when that same plumber would be among those benefiting?)

It is easy to see this double standard in someone else, but we all do it in our own ways. It is inevitable. The question is, when and how do I do it?

For instance, do I gleefully read and talk about unfavorable things about republicans, and overlook the same in democrats? Yes I do, sometimes.

At the bus today, I overheard a conversation where someone said what a dork. 

Whenever I hear descriptions about someone or something, I can turn it around to myself. I can find it in myself, befriend it right here. 

So in this case, I took the opportunity to first feel into that statement – what a dork – applied to me. There is some slight resistance here, then a shift into feeling and being it. There is a felt sense of openness in all directions. A felt sense of don’t know. A felt sense of a nurturing fullness. Healing. 

After staying with this feeling and these shifts for a while, I also look at how it applies to me. What are the different ways I am a dork? It is easy to find many different ways, including doing and writing about this – and this blog in general!

So here, in feeling and looking into it, there is a sense of nothing to defend. There is no “not-dork” identity to defend or prop up. There is a sense of openness in all directions. A sense of us. Recognition. 

And from here, a natural sense of gratitude and appreciation. Gratitude for finding it in myself, for a wide sense of us, for not having to defend an identity. Appreciation for finding it here and for the invitation to find it here. (Any statement about anything – and said by anyone – is an invitation to find it right here.)

(If I am caught up in the conventional and cultural programming around this, I may get hurt and want to defend myself if I am called certain things. But when I am familiar with this way of working with it, whatever I am called is gold. It helps me align myself more with reality, and find freedom from having to defend any identity. Also, since I am not called things all that often – that I am aware of – I can use whatever statements I hear or read about others and apply them to myself, and find the gold that way. Why let go of a good opportunity?) 

So for myself and my own sake, I find it right here and find that we are all in the same boat. I feel it. See it. And there is a genuine gratitude for it.

And sometimes, when appropriate, I can differentiate in all the conventional ways as well. Although that is for practical reasons only and usually very short term and specific to a situation. 

(more…)

I have read a few portions of Karen Armstrong’s The Bible so far, and found the history of Christian fundamentalism especially interesting.

(Listen to an interview and read the preface at NPR, and read an interview and review in The Guardian.)

One antidote to religious fundamentalism is knowledge of the history of our religion and its scriptures. Another important antidote is knowledge of how the faithful have viewed our religion and sacred texts through the times. Both are fluid, always changing, so why assume that the views (and versions of the scriptures) we have today is the final word or somehow privileged in terms of validity?

Why, for instance, is this early Bible so different from our contemporary versions? And isn’t it interesting that Christian fundamentalism, as we know it today, is a relatively new invention – from the 1800s?

(more…)

I keep appreciating the simplicity and beauty of the double turnaround.

Someone says something about someone else. In my mind, I turn the statement around to themselves. And then to myself.

So I get to see that their advice is for themselves, and how perfect it is as advice for themselves. And I also get to find it in myself. I get to see how it is true for me.

The effect of this is a shift into receptivity, clarity and an open heart.

(more…)

Milarepa went through a process of relating to his demons in different ways, from asking them to leave, going into dharma combat, welcoming them, and finally feeding them. (I have read a few different versions of this so am not sure what it says in his own writings.)

In any case, it is a good illustration of how I find myself relating to my own demons…

I may ignore them, pretend they are not there. Push them aside for a while. But they stay around and continue to do their demon things, so I need to find another way of relating to them. (Milarepa was probably smart enough to pass through this one quickly.)

I ask them to leave. Some may leave. Others may leave and come back. Many don’t leave. This one is also not very effective.

I go into arguments with them. I tell my version of the story. They tell theirs. And it doesn’t work very well.

I welcome them. Wholeheartedly. As they are. Allow them to stay as they are, even forever if that is what happens. (Which it isn’t.) Some go away. Others transform. And again, some stay. Some even continue to bug me.

I may ask (pray) for guidance, inviting in intention and receptivity for a shift in how I relate to them.

I may have a dialog with them. Asking them who they are. What they want. What they need. What I can do for them. What they can teach me. How they can help. This is more productive.

I can shift into their role, find myself as them and what I see in them in myself. Taking time to sink into it.

I may find any beliefs related to the demons, including the ones that make them appear as demons, and inquire into them. Is it true? What happens when I hold onto that belief? Who am I without it? What is the grain of truth in each reversal?

I feed them. I give them what they really need – love, kindness, sense of safety, and so on. I hold them within Big Heart, and allow them to transform in whatever way they want – within Big Heart.

I can notice them – and anything else – as awakeness itself. As the play of awakeness in/as form. This is the other side of the coin from working with it on the form side.

(more…)

A draft that didn’t go further… (too many points to flesh out!

(more…)

Here is an excellent practice on feeding your demons, adapted from the Tibetan chöd practice by Tsultrim Allione. The link goes to an excerpt in Tricycle from her book on the same topic.

Her version of the practice is quite similar to the Big Mind process, although goes far beyond in some respects.

They shouldn’t make sharks into shadow objects. (Watched Jaws.)

(more…)

In the beginning of shadow work, it may be difficult to find here what we see in others. After all, I am a relatively nice guy, so how can it be that the monster over there is mirroring something in me?

The trick is to be specific enough, and also keep in mind that it may look quite different in degree and form, although the quality is the same.

So I see someone who is a monster.

First, I see that he is misguided. Can I find where I am misguided?

Yes, I can find examples of that in the past and also now. Whenever I get stuck in a rigid view, I am misguided, and it usually has undesirable effects, even if it is just an achy stomach from eating something I knew I shouldn’t have eaten.

The outcome in that example is dramatically different, but the quality is the same. We are both sometimes misguided.

Then, he is cruel. Can I find that in myself?

For me, I can most easily see it when I see my own actions from the perspective of others. I walk past someone asking me for money, and I can understand how that can be seen as cruel. I could have helped, but I didn’t.

Also, there are lots of people in the world who could have benefited immensely from the money I use on frivolous eating and entertainment. I get a little bit of short lived entertainment out of it, and they could have used it to stay healthy or even survive. That is certainly cruel, from their perspective.

I sometimes eat meat, so I support the meat industry. The current meat industry is cruel. It is a system of massive imprisonment of living beings, of conditions that often amount to torture, and systematic killing just so I can get a meal from it. From the perspective of nonhuman beings, that is definitely cruel. (And quite possibly cruel from the perspective of future mainstream human society considering the longer term trends in morals, and who is included in a sense of us.)

Additional qualities may be heartless, manipulative, lier, and so on.

For each of these questions, I find examples of how it is genuinely true for me, and I take the time to see it in more detail, and also to stay with it and feel it in my body.

To summarize, the trick is to be detailed enough in what I see in the Other that is repulsive to me, and in finding it in myself. To find genuine examples of how I do the same. To take time to investigate, to stay with it, and to feel it in my body. And to remind myself that the expression of it can be quite different in type and degree.

In this way, I can find in myself anything I see in even the most misguided (evil, cruel) person out there.

This helps me embrace more of the whole of who I am, so I can relate to it more consciously and not be at the mercy of it. It helps me open my heart to myself and others. And it helps me act out of a little more wisdom and compassion, and a little less from reactiveness and rigid views.

Trigger: This post showing how it sometimes is difficult to work with extreme examples.

Some things are more important than vacations, so here is a quick pointer to a new book: Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. It is based on a large scale Gallup study following 911.

For more information, here is a MPR interview with one of the authors, an article by and a Counterpunch interview with the other author, a summary of the findings, and a brief BBC story.

From the Georgetown University review:

[...] Based on more than 50,000 interviews conducted between 2001 and 2007 with residents of more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have sizable Muslim populations, the poll surveyed more than 90% of the world’s Muslim community, making it the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind.

The research suggests that conflict between Muslims and the West is not inevitable and, in fact, is more about policy than principles. “However,” caution Esposito and Mogahed, “until and unless decision makers listen directly to the people and gain an accurate understanding of this conflict, extremists on all sides will continue to gain ground.” [...]

Some of the key findings of the research include:

• Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustifiable.
• Large majorities of Muslims would guarantee free speech if it were up to them to write a new constitution and they say religious leaders should have no direct role in drafting that constitution.
• Muslims around the world say that what they least admire about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values — the same answers that Americans themselves give when asked this question.
• When asked about their dreams for the future, Muslims say they want better jobs and security, not conflict and violence.
• Muslims say the most important thing Westerners can do to improve relations with their societies is to change their negative views toward Muslims and respect Islam.

(more…)

I have explored this before, but keep coming back to it:

Any belief has a shadow, and it is no different with the most basic belief, the one in a sense of a separate I, and I with an Other.

In this belief, we take ourselves to be content of awareness. As an object. As one of many. As a center.

So the reversals of this is then the shadow of the belief in being an I with an Other.
The reversal of taking ourselves to be content of awareness, is to find ourselves as awareness.

The reversal of taking ourselves as a thing, is to find ourselves as no thing.

The reversal of taking ourselves as one of many, is to find ourselves as the field it all arises within and as.

The reversal of taking ourselves as a center, is to find ourselves as no center.

And we relate to these the way we relate to projections in general. And we are attracted to awareness. We fear nothingness. We ignore the field with no center.

In each case, the reversals are already here. The awakeness. The no thing that allows all things. The field all arises within and as. The absence of a center anywhere.
And in each case, it doesn’t fit our identity. So we see it out there.

I have awareness, but it comes and goes, and it is not me. Nothingness is out there somewhere, or after death. The field with no center is the universe or God, not me.

(more…)

I did a brief exploration of the shadow of the Buddhist precepts a few days ago, and it turned out that this was one of the topics of Arny Mindell’s class earlier today.

We each have our personal ethics, whether we are aware of it or not. And as he hinted at, it is meant for ourselves. If we don’t pick it up, it is still around, but we assume it is for others. It is the classic it happens, it can’t be for me, so it must be for everyone else.

Then he talked about the denier of the ethics, both our inner denier and those in groups who take on the role of the denier. This is the voice that asks why, how, when? The voice that criticize and question the ethical guidelines.

How do we relate to this denier? Do we squash it? Disown it? Listen to it? Find the validity of what it has to say? Find a perspective that hold the truth in the initial ethics and the view of the denier? Refine our ethics?

The voice of the denier is essential. It helps us see our ethics, question it, refine it, explore the larger landscape, and much more. It also helps us not get trapped in the shadow of the ethics, disowning in ourselves whatever doesn’t fit with our personal ethics, whether we are conscious of this ethic or not.

One way of exploring this is by noticing our personal ethics as it shows up in daily life, explore the views that criticize it, and then find ourselves as that which holds both. (Process Work has exercises that makes this come alive, and also helps us find our deeper ethics, the ones just emerging, the ones not quite conscious yet.)

Another way is to explore the reversals of our ethics, as I did with the Buddhist precepts. What is the grain of truth in them? In what ways are they sometimes better? What is the gold in these reversals?

What is the gold in the shadow of our ethics?

I dreamt about ghosts last night, and when I looked into it afterwards, was reminded of how our relationship with the truth in reversals often can appear as ghosts. It is there, yet at the same time is ephemeral and almost not there.

I believe a story, yet somewhere know that it is only a story, that the reversals have truth in them as well, and even that the situation is inherently neutral without the stories. And since I believe the story, these truths in its reversals may appear as ghosts. There, because somewhere I already know them. Yet not quite there, because I ignore them. Disturbing, because they upset the belief I try to make appear true for myself. Persistent, because they have truth in them.

This is of course the same with shadows in a Jungian sense. Any belief has a shadow, and this shadow is the truth in its reversals. And sometimes they appear to us as ghosts.

In my case, it may have to do partly with my image of Norway. Society has changed quite a bit since I used to live here, and not in a direction my personality likes that much. And a conversation last night brought this up for me, including how there is some resistance to admitting that my stories to myself about Norway are not as accurate as I would like.

The truth in the reversals of these stories appear to me as ghosts. There. Yet ephemeral, not quite solidified. Slightly disturbing. Persistent.

I find that it is often the most simple, clear and banal situations that gives me insight into certain dynamics.

The resolution by the US congress on the Armenian genocide, and the reactions from Turkey, is one of these.

From the outside, it is pretty clear that Turkey wants to uphold a certain identity, and that this identity does not have room for genocide. It is limited, which means it is at odds with life, and fragile. It is something that has to be vigorously defended.

Seeing that, the question is: What types of identities do we, on collective and individual levels, cling to that are too narrow, too exclusive, at odds with life, precarious, and triggering the same blind reactiveness we see from Turkey?

For instance, the US is founded on genocide. If we are US citizens, is our identity large enough to comfortably include that? Or the habitual interference in the internal affairs of other countries, including active support of the toppling of democratically elected governments and of brutal dictatorships?

Being from Norway, is my identity for my country of birth large enough to include what happened to the indigenous people there? The tremendous amounts of fossil fuels extracted and burnt due to our oil industry, and its effects locally on people’s health and globally on the climate? The way the jews were left on their own when the Nazi’s invaded? The way gypsies were treated? They way the enormous wealth of the country is used mainly on its own citizens, leaving only a small amount for people around the world that have almost nothing? The petty focus on minor problems when people live in better conditions than nearly everyone any time and everywhere?

And in my personal life, where are the limits of my identity? What is left out? What can I not include yet? And how does it impact my life to constantly have to work on excluding it? Where do I feel I need to defend a precarious and limited identity? What would happen if I let go of defending it, and allowed whatever I tried to keep out?

It my experience, it may be disorienting for a while. Free up attention and energy for something else than defending an imaginary identity. And uncover what is already there, temporarily hidden by the drama of defending an identity, including a decisive engagement coming from clarity and an open heart.

Through some of the subquestions, The Work helps us explore how our beliefs and perceptions are formed and maintained by culture and community and more.

For instance, asking the question when did I first have that thought? tends to bring up the whole initial context, how it came from family, society and more, and how it continues to be maintained by those around us and our culture. Question no. 4, who would I be without the thought? and the turnarounds help us see that having that belief, that identity, and that way of filtering the world is not inevitable. Other people and cultures may indeed see the world quite differently. Their experiences and interpretations may be very different from what I initially took for granted, and I too glimpse this now.

The Work also helps us work with the he/she/it, you and I dimensions. The initial statement is about Other, a he, she or it. When we read our inquiry to the one it is about, for instance our partner, the you dimension comes in. And the I dimension is there throughout.

Here are some of the ways The Work works with the shadow…

• It brings it up and out by encouraging us to find a stressful statement. Whenever there is a stressful thought, aka any belief, there is also a shadow inherent in it.
  • Often, a part of us see that belief as unacceptable, even if it is there, so we squash it and try to not make it visible to others or even ourselves. In this case, we may partly be aware of our shadow, and uncomfortable with it.
  • Other times, we may be completely identified with the initial statement and corresponding identity, so don’t even question it. In this case, it is usually a blind shadow, and we see it only out there in the wider world.
• It works with the shadow in its many forms, as a shadow of a belief, an identity, and a group identity.
  • We work with the shadow of a belief through the turnarounds, which help us see the grain of truth in its reversals. The shadow of a belief, a statement taken as absolutely true, is exactly there, in the grain of truth of its reversals and also the limited truth of the initial statement.
  • Any belief creates a corresponding identity, at the very least an identity as someone who has that belief, filters the world that particular way, and behaves in relation to that identity (whether these behaviors are aligned with the identity or not.) When I explore what comes up through question no. 3, what happens when I believe that thought?, I explore this identity and its consequences. Question no. 4 and the turnarounds helps me explore what happens when this identity is not blindly identified with anymore, and I allow myself to move more freely among the different reversals of that identity. These reversals are the former shadow of the initial identity, and this is a way to begin to make more friends with it, bring it more actively into my daily life, see what it asks of me, and harvest its gifts.
  • And from the shadows of the belief and its corresponding identity, group shadows form. Again, through questions no. 3, 4 and the turnarounds, we get to see and explore this group identity, its consequences, its shadow/reversals, and what happens when there is a release from blindly identifying with it.
• Through taking one or more of the turnarounds into daily life, we get to explore it more actively there as well, with the insights inquiry gave us.
  • We get find the truth in the reversals/shadow of the initial belief, live from a space holding the limited truth in all of them, and find a fluidity among them in daily life.
  • We get to find in ourselves the the reversals/shadow of the initial identity, explore how it is to admit to and live from those reversal identities, and finding a fluidity among them in daily life. What is different when I live from an identity that previously was not acceptable? What gifts does it offer? How it is to find more fluidity among them in daily life?
  • And we get to explore the corresponding group shadows as well. Which groups in my life have these shadows, and how are they expressed? What happens if I deliberately move outside of the group norms and acknowledge the grain of truth in the reversals of the belief, and maybe shift into the reversals identities? Is is accepted or not? Does it help shift the group into a wider embrace? If not, maybe I could leave the group?

The impulse to explore this in a little more detail (not that I haven’t many times before) came when I read some discussion about The Work in the context of the Ken Wilber type integral framework. Sometimes, we can be so intent on finding how things does not align with a particular framework that we miss how it does. (Not that it has to, or even should.)

(more…)