| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Orpheus
Member
Romania
3999 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 2:31:58 PM
|
I just got back from Essence Emerging, an inner work group that meets twice a year, led by Jessica Dibb and Russ.
This class we focused on the instincts and their essential qualities. It was an amazing class, lots of new insights on the instincts, and we very powerful for everyone involved.
I'm going to post some info of what went on there, mostly just what I think would be immediately helpful, but a lot of this content is what I believe is going into Russ's upcoming book on the instincts and therefore I don't want to share too much out of respect for that. I'm going to post the intro and when I've got more time, I will probably post more on each individual instinct.
These are some of my notes:
-------------------
The person we take ourselves to be has a foundation in primitive feelings that produce patterns, then we try to find ourselves in them. We are not there, we are here.
Gurdjieff had a metaphor of a man sitting on different chairs. One chair was mechanical, asleep man, and another was the self-realized man. G said "God bless the man on the first chair, god bless the man on the second chair, but god have mercy on the man between chairs."
What we think we are has nothing real behind it, and when we're about to see past it, we find ways to charge it back up again.
To be with one instinct, you must be with the other two.
Inhabiting just one instinct (the ego-distortion) means you're not in them but only reacting to fears around them.
Instincts are the life-energy, and being so they are also about and related to Death. Air-y Fair-y new age spirituality doesn't mean anything against the hard fact of death. You cannot stay present without the balance of the instincts.
All sensations are in the body, all instincts are of the body. No sensations, no presence.
Instinctual life has been usurped from preserving life to preserving the ego. Instinctual life sucked away by patterns, when you free up the energy that goes into fixated ego patterns (type), you have more life energy available, more flexibility, and a greater capacity to hold more in your experience. Must be present to instincts in the body. When who you are is your structure, nature is elsewhere. When you say yes to life force, you put yourself out into "eat or be eaten". Too scary for most people.
There is a price to pay for presence. Who gets the credit? It means the end of specialness.
*We don't have 3 centers, we have 5 centers - head, heart, self-pres, sexual, social, those comprising the belly center, and 2 centers we cultivate - higher emotional and higher mental.
Instincts contain billions of years of intelligence and are far more intelligent than our ignorant and fractured minds.
Fear, shame, rage appropriates instinctual life to keep it going, and used to obscure deficiency of the ego.
-Have you made your pattern the goal? Have you spritualized your pattern? Made your pattern god?
*We attribute spiritual significance to our egos and to our distortion patterns, especially related to our instinctual imbalance.
*Type passion runs with instinct. Passion + instinct feels non-negotiable. We think God looks like our instinct. When we're not present we prioritize a particular pattern. Where are you making yourself a hero or a victim? Passions run through 3 zones within each instinct, wherein we are reacting to fears in that instinct, not inhabiting that instinct. The self-pres cannot let life flourish, the sexual cannot fuse, the social cannot connect.
The Social Instinct is the most misunderstood of the instincts. 50% of people Russ knows who identify as sexual are social because social is so misunderstood and poorly taught. Sexual is NOT intimacy, one on one. There is a one to one style for each instinct. Instinct has nothing to do with the heart center. Social is more about connection than Sexual. However, people's narcissistic wounding is projected through the instinct.
Social is the USA's blindspot.
Distortions around instinct feel real and utterly justifiable.
All instincts are tied to sensations in the body, they must be felt there to be present to them.
Self-pres is felt as physical sensations in the body.
Sexual is felt as tingling or energy.
Social is warmth or openness, a sensation of not being a closed circuit.
example
SP 7 - I need lots of different things to make sure I have what I need. Voracious about the basics.
SP 5 - Withholding SP. Don't want too much but I need this.
SP 2 - Pride, I have no needs, but I can take care of yours.
SP 1 - There is a correct way to be SP, this is how you keep a place clean, this is how you run your finances, any sensible person knows that.
EDIT:
You have all three instincts, to function all must be balanced and present. However, your last instinct is the one you perpetually talk yourself out of or postpone. It feels like a burden or something you can't make time or energy for. There is unconscious shame around the last instinct. You 'fix' your dominant instinct by focusing on your weakest, not giving the dominant more attention.
________________________________
The human face is an empty force, a field of death.
A sunset is beautiful for what it takes away.
Artaud
It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering.
Gurdjieff
|
Edited by - Orpheus on 17 Jan 2012 1:18:10 PM |
|
|
~lee~
Member
USA
8178 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 3:22:00 PM
|
Thank you, Orph. I really hope that Russ writes his book soon.
The social instinct might be the hardest one to connect with embodiment. What is the physical experience of connection or disconnection (as different from the attraction/repulsion of the sx instinct)? Terms such as "good/bad vibes" might be referring to this. |
 |
|
|
Stormy
Member
United Kingdom
15282 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 3:38:57 PM
|
Thanks, Orpheus. I'm wondering if there's a word missing here (the space after "the sexual cannot be"):
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
The self-pres cannot let life flourish, the sexual cannot be , the social cannot connect.
- [Stormy] |
Edited by - Stormy on 16 Jan 2012 3:39:57 PM |
|
|
|
eidbuser
Member
1957 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 3:53:53 PM
|
| What impact did this have on your personal experience? |
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
4622 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 5:17:51 PM
|
I disagree with Russ that social is more about 'connection' than sexual (unless you mean connection on a more global scale). I suppose, soc.sx could be connection on an interpersonal scale, soc.sp on the global scale. Maybe the people Russ knows who type as sexual are social/sexual or self-preservation/sexual.
If sx isn't intimacy, what is it? I agree that sx and soc would be a different kind of connection, but I always saw sx as more intimate, because to me sx is seeing things more 'up close', but maybe from a more narrow perspective, while soc (especially soc/sp) sees from a relative distance but a wider perspective.
To me, sx is merging, while soc is relating. (though that correlation has some flaws) Therefore, sx is the more 'literal' kind of connection. |
Edited by - enneathing on 16 Jan 2012 5:25:46 PM |
|
|
|
~lee~
Member
USA
8178 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 6:33:31 PM
|
Enneathing
Thr Sx instinct is involuntary attraction/repulsion, more akin to chemistry than intimacy. You could be happily partnered with someone for years, and encounter someone in the elevator for whom you feel intense attraction--as if your pheremones were activated. That's Sx...no intimacy required or entailed. |
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
4622 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 6:42:21 PM
|
quote:
Thr Sx instinct is involuntary attraction/repulsion,
Yes - but what you describe is an encounter, you're describing contact. It's a form of connection. Would this mean that Russ is implying that sx is 'physical' connection (aka 'chemistry') and social is more an intellectual connection?
I still think sx is an emotional connection.
Some definitions of intimacy -
Close familiarity or friendship; closeness.
A private cozy atmosphere.
Synonyms:
familiarity - intimity - nearness
'Closeness' and 'nearness' both suggest sx to me. |
|
|
|
eidbuser
Member
1957 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 6:57:34 PM
|
Social - Bonding
Sexual - Reproducing
If we look at instincts on the most animalistic level, the sexual drive draws us into intense, explosive connections and then sends us on our way again for more combustive encounters. In our human culture women have more of a social instinct than men. I would also say that the social instinct is what causes us to want to remain monogamous, or to have a long/er term relationships. The sexual instinct in and of itself does not seek to prolong itself throughout time, it lives for immediacy and the near-future. The sexual instinct doesn't care about "getting to know you," it just wants to become you. The social instinct is about two or more distinct individuals being in connection while maintaining their individuality, whereas the sexual is concerned with two beings merging into one being, for a given span of time.
|
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
4622 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:06:33 PM
|
quote:
Social - Bonding
Can't say I agree, social isn't about bonding or interaction to me.
'Relating' works because I can relate to people from a distance, without having to interact with them. I can't say I think the social instinct is about forming relationships, at least, not as a particular focus. It's more of a motivation one might have for forming a relationship (sp and sx can also serve as a motivation), but I would have to disagree that the social instinct, in itself, is about forming relationships.
I would argue that soc/sp is the least 'connected' or 'human' of the stackings (as opposed to sp/soc which is the most communally connected and 'human'). |
|
|
|
eidbuser
Member
1957 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:12:51 PM
|
| you seem unclear about it |
|
|
|
relicquery
Member
1499 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:15:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
(as opposed to sp/soc which is the most communally connected and 'human').
Why do you hurt me like this. |
|
|
|
Narc
Member
1205 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:29:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
quote:
Thr Sx instinct is involuntary attraction/repulsion,
Yes - but what you describe is an encounter, you're describing contact. It's a form of connection. Would this mean that Russ is implying that sx is 'physical' connection (aka 'chemistry') and social is more an intellectual connection?
I still think sx is an emotional connection.
Some definitions of intimacy -
Close familiarity or friendship; closeness.
A private cozy atmosphere.
Synonyms:
familiarity - intimity - nearness
'Closeness' and 'nearness' both suggest sx to me.
It's got nothing to do with emotional or intellectual. It is raw instinct.
"Intimacy", as in your dictionary definition, is clearly more social than sexual. I think Eidbuser explains it well.
Enneathing, I think you had better keep an open mind about your instincts. More attention is required to understanding what the instincts actually are and how they manifest, whilst we begin to observe them in ourselves.
|
Edited by - Narc on 16 Jan 2012 7:31:44 PM |
|
|
|
~lee~
Member
USA
8178 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:42:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
quote:
Social - Bonding
I would argue that soc/sp is the least 'connected' or 'human' of the stackings (as opposed to sp/soc which is the most communally connected and 'human').
Say what? Seriously, I realize this is your opinion, enneathing, but I think that you'd have a difficult time making an argument that didn't rely on assumptions that fundamentally misunderstand the instincts.
One of the challenges of being human, whatever the stacking, is to integrate the instincts, which reveal features of the embodied self. Urges sometimes coming out of seemingly nowhere. What are they about? What do we do with them...or not? Fundamental questions of a lived life. |
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
4622 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:42:40 PM
|
Type related, relicquery?
Narc -
It's interesting, as I can see sx as the most 'animalistic' instinct, which would be in line with what lee said. Raw attraction and emotion. The social instinct is the most 'developed' or 'evolved' instinct, in that it's supposed to require higher faculties, therefore it is often seen as the most 'intellectual' instinct. But, imo, it is not 'close familiarity or friendship' which I think is a misconception.
I agree with what eidbuser says, except for what I quoted, and -
quote:
The sexual instinct doesn't care about "getting to know you," it just wants to become you.
The sx instinct I would argue is about 'getting to know' the other person on a closer level, almost at the level of 'becoming' the other person. Sx wants to know the other on a more intimate level that soc.
But, I'm up for arguments against this as it's what's painted the general understanding of soc as more superficial than other instincts, and sx as 'deeper'.
quote:
you seem unclear about it
The only thing I'm unclear about is how to describe 'relating' for soc, but imo it works as a general descriptor.
|
Edited by - enneathing on 16 Jan 2012 7:44:50 PM |
|
|
|
Narc
Member
1205 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:50:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
quote:
you seem unclear about it
The only thing I'm unclear about is how to describe 'relating' for soc, but imo it works as a general descriptor.
I think it is easy to mistake the instincts for the more superficial strata of personality.
|
|
|
|
eidbuser
Member
1957 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:51:14 PM
|
| I think some of the difficulty you're having is thinking of the instincts in terms of how they work on a more conscious human level, as in the "instinctual subtypes." What they're talking about here is the instincts on a visceral animal level. |
Edited by - eidbuser on 16 Jan 2012 7:51:49 PM |
|
|
|
~lee~
Member
USA
8178 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:52:24 PM
|
I agree with Russ, who claims that intimacy is a "heart" issue. The instincts might support intimacy but they are not ABOUT intimacy. And good intimacy is supported by all three instincts
My opinion about intimacy and instincts is:
Self-pres supports comfort, coziness, sometimes having touch with someone--a need for safety is met
Sx supports electricity--a need for excitement is met
Soc supports continued engagement, even in situations of conflict--a need to assume or plan a future is met |
|
|
|
relicquery
Member
1499 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:55:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
Type related, relicquery?
5w4, even sp/so, is forever outside of everything in the universe, yes.
quote:
It's interesting, as I can see sx as the most 'animalistic' instinct, which would be in line with what lee said. Raw attraction and emotion. The social instinct is the most 'developed' or 'evolved' instinct, in that it's supposed to require higher faculties, therefore it is often seen as the most 'intellectual' instinct. But, imo, it is not 'close familiarity or friendship' which I think is a misconception.
I see all the instincts as animalistic. Even insects can operate as a hive collective, which needs something like a social instinct to function. As for emotions, it's strange to me to associate "feeling" with "sx" because shame (an advanced emotion) only exists as a social tool. In humans, all three instincts are approached with the three Enneagrammatic "centers" of gut, heart, and mind. A social instinct cannot operate effectively without emotional connection; that's where sociopaths come from. An intellectual approach to the social realm is the approach most likely to get you branded a freak. It is useless without empathy.
I agree that "relating" is a good metaphor for the soc instinct, but will maintain with others that sx is more about attraction.
_____________
It's better in here.
|
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
4622 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 7:58:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ~lee~
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
quote:
Social - Bonding
I would argue that soc/sp is the least 'connected' or 'human' of the stackings (as opposed to sp/soc which is the most communally connected and 'human').
Say what? Seriously, I realize this is your opinion, enneathing, but I think that you'd have a difficult time making an argument that didn't rely on assumptions that fundamentally misunderstand the instincts.
soc/sp, imo, is the most distanced, the most aerial view, the least involved in the mess down below. soc/sx is the 'interpersonal' stacking that involves itself, sp/soc contributes to the community for security. Maybe I am just seeing this through my own type, but if sx is the most animalistic and concerned with raw attraction, soc/sp is the most 'alien' as there's the most distance and remove there.
Honestly I don't think there's any difficulty here. |
Edited by - enneathing on 16 Jan 2012 7:59:28 PM |
|
|
|
enneathing
Member
4622 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 8:11:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Narc
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
quote:
you seem unclear about it
The only thing I'm unclear about is how to describe 'relating' for soc, but imo it works as a general descriptor.
I think it is easy to mistake the instincts for the more superficial strata of personality.
Hey Narc, sorry I didn't get round to thinking of a similar set of questions for the soc and sx instincts you asked, I will get round to it soon. :) |
|
|
|
Narc
Member
1205 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 8:19:24 PM
|
| Ok, I liked your questions. |
|
|
|
.ron4
Member
11625 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 8:47:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ~lee~
I agree with Russ, who claims that intimacy is a "heart" issue. The instincts might support intimacy but they are not ABOUT intimacy. And good intimacy is supported by all three instincts
My opinion about intimacy and instincts is:
Self-pres supports comfort, coziness, sometimes having touch with someone--a need for safety is met
Sx supports electricity--a need for excitement is met
Soc supports continued engagement, even in situations of conflict--a need to assume or plan a future is met
I would like to agree with this opinion which is easier than
me trying to express my own opinion.
"If you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change". |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Member
Romania
3999 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 8:49:15 PM
|
I will post more about the other instincts as I get to them and some questions may be cleared up.
i forgot to mention, Russ and Jess said that it is important to remember the instincts, not to be a more functional part of our cultural ideal of these things, but to let instinctual intelligence flower as it will free of distortion in our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by enneathing
I disagree with Russ that social is more about 'connection' than sexual (unless you mean connection on a more global scale). I suppose, soc.sx could be connection on an interpersonal scale, soc.sp on the global scale. Maybe the people Russ knows who type as sexual are social/sexual or self-preservation/sexual.
If sx isn't intimacy, what is it? I agree that sx and soc would be a different kind of connection, but I always saw sx as more intimate, because to me sx is seeing things more 'up close', but maybe from a more narrow perspective, while soc (especially soc/sp) sees from a relative distance but a wider perspective.
To me, sx is merging, while soc is relating. (though that correlation has some flaws) Therefore, sx is the more 'literal' kind of connection.
Keep in mind that as your last instinct, you will have your distortions around seeing it. SO/SP is not less animalistic than any other instinct.
Sexual is charge, instinctual, it can be penetrative and dissolving of boundaries, desirous of the other, allowing for a piercing kind of close, but intimacy is a heart quality, if the heart center is not engaged, it's not intimacy. Many sexuals can't be intimate because they're fixated. Instinct runs the narcissistic issues and that conflation can seem like a desire for intimacy but it's an instinctual 'right to exist' thing. The sexual is not there to love, the sexual is there to hunt, capture, consume and self-extinguish.
Russ said the conflation of the sexual instinct as intimacy speaks to our shadow and ambivalence about true intimacy. it's not romance, real intimacy and romance is the shadow.
When healthy, the sexual is attracted to what makes more life, more presence, when unhealthy, the attraction is to what props up the ego.
you have to separate the heart center from the instinct to see the instinct.
Lee basically said it best: quote:
Originally posted by ~lee~
Enneathing
Thr Sx instinct is involuntary attraction/repulsion, more akin to chemistry than intimacy. You could be happily partnered with someone for years, and encounter someone in the elevator for whom you feel intense attraction--as if your pheremones were activated. That's Sx...no intimacy required or entailed.
in your talk about closeness, the sexual is necessary to breach the boundaries that bring closeness, but it's not closeness per se - that's more social. the sexual needs constant energy.
I would disagree a bit with EIDBusers talk about the sexual as merely sex. It's about hunting but also acquiring, in a sense there is a bondedness, but it's not the emotional bonding, it's fusion. the sexual instinct requires it's object.
Sex is the birth of the sexual instinct, but it's not sex itself. The kind of disconnected sex we have in our culture is a distortion of the sexual instinct, as russ put it "thousands of years of acting like sex is stupid and dangerous has made sex stupid and dangerous."
quote:
Originally posted by Stormy
Thanks, Orpheus. I'm wondering if there's a word missing here (the space after "the sexual cannot be"):
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
The self-pres cannot let life flourish, the sexual cannot be , the social cannot connect.
- [Stormy]
oops, yes, the sexual cannot fuse.
quote:
Originally posted by relicquery
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
Social is the USA's blindspot.
Can you clarify what is meant by "blindspot"?
Yes, social isn't really understood in our culture. There isn't much of a place for it. "Socalizing" is seen as a frivolous activity that has been dumbed down. "Social networking" is a meaningless phrase. Russ said "Small talk is a conversation you're just not interested in." - it's how we as social animals feel each other out.
Obama was derided for being a "community organizer" while people often want businessmen to be president. SP "work or you go to hell" christianism. If you're not [blocked due to guideline #4 violation]ing or making money in our culture, you're not doing anything. Socialized medicine, socialism, welfare, all seen as negative. Idea that we all work our way to the top as singular entities is false but held by the culture. Social has a lot to do with play, the USA looks down on play. We have mindless diversions, but not much of a space for play. Too serious. Social is also a sensitivity to context, USA lacks such sensitivity - just look at our position in the world or the way our culture operates and proliferates.
________________________________
The human face is an empty force, a field of death.
A sunset is beautiful for what it takes away.
Artaud
It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering.
Gurdjieff
|
Edited by - Orpheus on 16 Jan 2012 8:58:57 PM |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Member
Romania
3999 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 9:23:14 PM
|
Self-Preservation
Manifests in 3 zones, each with their particular distortions. When the SP instinct is distorted, it runs between Rigidity and Flaccidity in these three zones:
1) Health and Well being - Health, rest, exercise, hygiene, attending to the needs of the body. Becomes distorted as excessive exercise and dieting, eating disorders, trying too hard to be healthy. Or comfort over development, a kind of numb nesting, eating junk food, not sleeping, poor sleeping habits, addiction to alcohol, ect.
2) Practical know-how - How to attend to practical affairs of living, liking the basics of life, maintenance, repair, adaptability to circumstance, ability to work, to put one's affairs in order, to handle the necessities of our world. Distortion is workaholism or people who can't get to work (don't necessarily mean job), can't take care of themselves.
3) Domesticity - maintaining a home, a foundation, a base or nest from which pursuing one's passions and callings can be supported. Distortion is the Nest/Tomb, never leaving the home, can't get out, hoarding, purging, or excessively rigid about structures and routines - house has to be spotless, must be in bed at certain time, eat certain foods, control of regularity.
again, the distortions are when we are not in that instinct, but when we are reacting to our fears around that instinct.
Russ talked about trainings running late and all the self-pres start worrying about how long it's going - got to get home, have to eat something, have to go to the bathroom, training will be so early the next morning i'll be so tired. Asks, are you really tired or just responding to fear?
How do I organize my life so as to serve my awakening?
Self-pres is the most powerful and basic force in the universe, it is the sustaining of life. Drive to life. Will to be.
It's not just survival, it's also thriving. Sensation, not cognitive.
Body system reading the environment, what is the body telling you?
Conservation and restoration of energy.
It's not that you obey every call of your body, but that you fully acknowledge it and act from a state of presence about those sensation. Not rejecting the intelligence that comes through self-pres.
Sp is more important doorway for enlightenment because it is about one's existence in the Now.
No identity/compensating state, sitting in the problem.
the One on One is SP: Domestic, stable, trust, nesting, co-habiting, coming home together, sharing, long and deep, comfort, trust, being here with your partner, creating something together, marriage vows, sustaining something.
SP sex is about touching, body contact, sensations, closeness.
SP is trusting sensation as intelligence. Knowing when to conserve. Awareness of time and space, "the appointed time" - knowing the appropriate place and time (creating a sacred space) when called into action by presence.
Everything can be made a sacred space. "We cannot awaken unless we are in god's household".
SP Blindspot -
Person feels childish, unable to rest, to land, can't take care of themselves, always needing outside support, procrastinating SP matters.
3 Levels of Development:
-Unconscious - I will survive, even if I must destroy you, even if I must destroy myself. This is survival of the ego at it's purest. "I deserve it".
-Growing - arranging my life so that I begin to feel well and have the capacity to function.
-Illuminated - surrender of oneself, energy and body, to be a vehicle for essence. to make space, all space, for essence.
________________________________
The human face is an empty force, a field of death.
A sunset is beautiful for what it takes away.
Artaud
It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering.
Gurdjieff
|
Edited by - Orpheus on 16 Jan 2012 9:23:42 PM |
|
|
|
eidbuser
Member
1957 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 9:29:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
The kind of disconnected sex we have in our culture is a distortion of the sexual instinct, as russ put it "thousands of years of acting like sex is stupid and dangerous has made sex stupid and dangerous."
Love this quote.
quote:
Yes, social isn't really understood in our culture. There isn't much of a place for it. "Socalizing" is seen as a frivolous activity that has been dumbed down. "Social networking" is a meaningless phrase. Russ said "Small talk is a conversation you're just not interested in." - it's how we as social animals feel each other out.
Obama was derided for being a "community organizer" while people often want businessmen to be president. SP "work or you go to hell" christianism. If you're not [blocked due to guideline #4 violation]ing or making money in our culture, you're not doing anything. Socialized medicine, socialism, welfare, all seen as negative. Idea that we all work our way to the top as singular entities is false but held by the culture. Social has a lot to do with play, the USA looks down on play. We have mindless diversions, but not much of a space for play. Too serious. Social is also a sensitivity to context, USA lacks such sensitivity - just look at our position in the world or the way our culture operates and proliferates.
Are we talking about culture, government, economics, or just republican conservatives? Partying seems like a social instinct thing, which our culture has a lot of, and people small talk all the time; or is those supposed to be unevolved forms of social instinct? What would "real" play be? Sports are also huge in the u.s., which is another socially driven creation. As a social last, a lot of the social things in the world stick out strongly. It seems like there is a superabundance of socializing going on. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Member
Romania
3999 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 9:36:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by eidbuser
quote:
Yes, social isn't really understood in our culture. There isn't much of a place for it. "Socalizing" is seen as a frivolous activity that has been dumbed down. "Social networking" is a meaningless phrase. Russ said "Small talk is a conversation you're just not interested in." - it's how we as social animals feel each other out.
Obama was derided for being a "community organizer" while people often want businessmen to be president. SP "work or you go to hell" christianism. If you're not [blocked due to guideline #4 violation]ing or making money in our culture, you're not doing anything. Socialized medicine, socialism, welfare, all seen as negative. Idea that we all work our way to the top as singular entities is false but held by the culture. Social has a lot to do with play, the USA looks down on play. We have mindless diversions, but not much of a space for play. Too serious. Social is also a sensitivity to context, USA lacks such sensitivity - just look at our position in the world or the way our culture operates and proliferates.
Are we talking about culture, government, economics, or just republican conservatives? Partying seems like a social instinct thing, which our culture has a lot of, and people small talk all the time; or is those supposed to be unevolved forms of social instinct? What would "real" play be? Sports are also huge in the u.s., which is another socially driven creation. As a social last, a lot of the social things in the world stick out strongly. It seems like there is a superabundance of socializing going on.
We're talking across the board. Partying as it's known is both a distortion as well as the attitude towards parties, celebrations, fun, silliness, there's an attitude that they're stupid and like russ said, treating it like it's stupid has made it stupid. People go to parties but talk about how stupid parties are as they go to them.
Russ's quote was saying there is no such thing as small talk, Small talk is what people call conversations that don't interest them. He's referring to chatting, having conversations in general. Shallow talk is a distortion and avoidance.
Sports aren't real play - most people just watch sports, don't participate, and when it's done it's often for power or display or prestige, or money. "Real play" is something creative and engaging.
"It seems like there is a superabundance of socializing going on."
That's the attitude Russ is alluding to- social as frivolous, time waster, not serious enough, as needing "payment" of some kind, ect.
The social blindspot sees all social action as a kind of exchange - 'I can only talk to this person if I have something to say, if I need something from them."
We had various exercises on the weekend, more elements to them than I can write here, but it was breathwork followed by a kind of dancing with everyone. We were divided into groups based on our blindspot instinct, the so-last group was pretty funny and frustrating. It totally fizzled and people were bickering. We were supposed to come up with a group practice to work on our blindspot, we were the only group that didn't come up with one. I made a person one - to be more accessible and to talk to someone without having a reason to.
________________________________
The human face is an empty force, a field of death.
A sunset is beautiful for what it takes away.
Artaud
It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering.
Gurdjieff
|
Edited by - Orpheus on 16 Jan 2012 9:43:23 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Spiritual Instincts
