Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dyck Dewid on October 16, 2012 at 11:46am

Oh Helen... you profound me delightfully, surely being one with the singing heart. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Harvey W. Austin, MD on October 16, 2012 at 11:31am

Ben et al... As I dance in and out of these conversations, sometimes to add, sometimes but to read, I realize that I am unclear what is meant by 'SYNTHESIS'. I gather that it is something greater than 'summary' and it implies an alignment...but what more?

Would y'all be good enough to speak to this?

Harvey

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Roberts on October 16, 2012 at 11:57am

Meaning-making might be another way to think about it, Harvey.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pawel Klewin on October 17, 2012 at 4:20am

Andrew Cohen, at the leading edge of world's spirituality, posted yesterday as a quote of the week:

...after we've seen beyond the veil of materiality and temporality for ourselves, we know without any doubt that it means something to exist. [full article at BigThink]

Ben, are you sure it (your statement above) can just be another way to think about synthesis? Upon Cohen's quote, in view of position he holds within integral movement, it may be much more.

Can we formulate any meaningful synthesis at any local level unless "WE" first synthesize the universal meaning of our human existence?

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Roberts on October 16, 2012 at 12:48pm

To go a bit further... Yes, summarizing and alignment are part of it, and i think you're right, Harvey, that there is also more than that..  Pawel probably has his own deep dive here too.  You could also look at all the cards in the Inquiry and Synthesis category of the GroupWorks deck for some quick insight.  The overall category is defined thusly:

Discovering coherence and moving toward convergence. From gathering information to exploring knowledge to arriving at understanding, shared meaning, consensus, or clear outcomes.

And here are a few cards...

Or perhaps this one:

And this one, which might be closer to where Pawel is coming from (LOVE the picture--here's a link to the page for this card, where you can see a higher res version and also read more about the concept as the GroupWorks folks conceive it):

:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dyck Dewid on October 16, 2012 at 2:18pm

I sure appreciate the seemingly small gesture of seeking common definition such as synthesis, Harvey. It's so helpful to me in my getting 'embedded' into a dialogue (even if I still don't 'have it' precisely yet). As I'm more embedded I can put away the maps and crash helmet and appreciate my light-weight omnidirectional spirit vehicle.

I might be ready to start including terms of convergent versus divergent thinking. This latter term appears to demand different skills.  For example in convergent thinking one gathers what they & others know, possibly synthesizing or creating new info from that... to solve a defined problem or prove an hypothesis.

Divergent thinking gathers from a universe of information, from an open perspective being on a mission, and looking for problems or interferences.  It's something like being given the answer and then constructing the most perfect all-inclusive question that fits and has no rivals.

Divergent thinking is how I'm wanting to think about Occupy (as a mission) because it's such a morass of man-made problems on top of problems on top of problems.  As Ben suggests the word Distillation comes to the fore... making the task a giant yet 'sensible' gathering up & understanding 'the reality of our time'... and not trying to solve what isn't yet, or can't be, understood.

All the time... in the back of my mind...  I 'know' the journey IS 'the reality of our time'.  And the coup-d-gras could be in letting go the 'idea' of needing to do something unnatural (force, control), or having to change others, etc.. but rather finding a way to bring into life the act of 'allowing'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pawel Klewin on October 16, 2012 at 4:33pm

Dyck’s post is about thinking. May I take the opportunity to ask the question I try to answer for myself from the beginning of my participation in OC discussions?

On the group Occupy 2.0: Transforming Systems from the Inside Out  Doreen Agostino said then (almost a year ago):

Occupy Wall Street = unaware people believe the lie that we are separate from The Oneness, from One another, Earth, all Kingdoms.

I asked:  And who is the liar?

Doreen answered:  I'd say the liar is a thought, a thought that limits us.

I fully agree with Doreen. My question concerns the conclusion of her statement. Logically there are three possible conclusions:

1. Stop thinking, act upon directives coming from somewhere outside of individuals’ consciousness
2. Change the way we think
3. Reset the content of consciousness - essential, common data founding all thinking.

Doreen opted for a. Neither b. nor c. have ever been considered.  Exploring the teachings at the leading edge of post-postmodern spirituality I found simple, straightforward answer [Allan Combs, director of Center for Consciousness Studies in recent issue of Spanda Journal]:

Thus in Evolutionary enlightenment, the practice of assuming no relationship to the content of consciousness... makes space for the limitless creative potential of the evolutionary impulse to reveal itself.

My question: By what power the conclusion a. has come into force? (content of consciousness is the substance of thought)?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dyck Dewid on October 17, 2012 at 10:43am

Pawel, I'm not clear about what exactly are you asking... and what conclusion are you referring to in my post?  Or, is there rather a broad point you want make?

ps, in my opinion you have just as much credibility as Doreen X (or Allen Y), and they aren't present for clarification or challenge or context considerations.  ... whatever comes from your experience and understanding and sincerity, I'll believe you and hold it in high regard.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pawel Klewin on October 17, 2012 at 5:06pm

Thank you very much for high regard :-). My experience however may be a little strange for you (different backgrounds). I regard myself as observer from outside and try to synthesize what I hear you saying. My experience may come in later.

By “you” I mean wide range of Movements, from Occupy, through Transition to Integral.

Half of your post was about thinking, so I believed it is a good moment for synthetic question on this subject.

Synthesis of my almost 5 years observation is that “you” think thinking is a distraction and stands in the way of spiritual knowledge coming from the heart. To act for better future “WE” should stop thinking (the quotes I used to support the synthesis). To what degree is this synthesis correct?

Referring to your ps: I thought synthesis means something like common denominator of members of a group within framework of specific discussion. Doreen Agostino (member of occupy café) and Alan Combs (member of establishment of integral spirituality) marked the range of the BIG group I have chosen as source of synthesis.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by don carlin on October 17, 2012 at 8:11am

Love those cards Ben - and wow I love to think about what the originators might make of them, passing them from hand to hand as they gathered to debate and think and discuss on the steps of the the Athenaeum :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Roberts on October 17, 2012 at 11:57am

I have been requesting that some synthesizing energy be directed to our Sacred Economics thread, and meaning to devote some of my own to that end as well.    Perhaps the emergent conversation about "synthesis" we see here could be enriched by an exercise in actually doing some over there!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pawel Klewin on October 17, 2012 at 5:15pm

Ben, I posted this as reply to your  yesterday post about meaning. I think you did not notice it:

Andrew Cohen, at the leading edge of world's spirituality, posted yesterday as a quote of the week:

...after we've seen beyond the veil of materiality and temporality for ourselves, we know without any doubt that it means something to exist. [full article at BigThink]

Ben, are you sure it (your statement above) can just be another way to think about synthesis? Upon Cohen's quote, in view of position he holds within integral movement, it may be much more.

Can we formulate any meaningful synthesis at any local level unless "WE" first synthesize the universal meaning of our human existence?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page