Welcome! How to Use This Blog

A most heartfelt welcome to you!
There is a Welcome textbox on the side which will direct you to my definitions of terms (not available yet,) and other orienting matters. Please note this is all still under construction. Do check back or subscribe!

Thursday, November 21, 2013

We-Spaces: Parameters of Description

We-Spaces: Parameters of Description


In describing a Second or Third Tier We-space, what the heck constitutes a description? What are we looking at (from the inside or outside?) And why are those questions important?



What might be some useful distinctions among the concepts of "conversation" and "we-space" and "culture." Conversations take place in a culture, usually constrained and shaped by it, and a "we-space" is the energetic and/or subjectively-experienced "it" of either a culture or conversation/meeting/etc. 

One might say -- sticking to a broad brush -- that every culture and conversation has a "we-space" but generally "it" is not perceived, let alone consciously co-created, co-shaped, and co-amplified. The phenomenon of "we-space" can operate at every stage of development, but shows up as an object of consciousness primarily beginning in Second Tier "world-spaces" (although there are masters of we-space manipulation operating at every level, who can operate a group for their own purposes.)


Whether a we-space is a social holon, or not, perhaps we can use the 4 quadrants as a beginning guide. What could one say about such a we-space which would be a useful description for most purposes? Note this below is a first attempt to create a template for a description, it is not an actual description.


I am far less concerned about whether I have placed a question in the correct “zone” than whether it is a useful question for the purpose of characterizing a we-space group, and I am MOST concerned about what questions are missing from this list which would be useful (for most purposes.) Please add more!


UL:
From the inside: What is the subjectively described experience of individuals as they move into this we-space? As they continue within it? As they emerge from it?
From the outside: What feelings and thoughts do the individuals appear to have?


UR:
From the outside: What would an observer describe as the most-common, or shared “state” of consciousness, what is the “group state of consciousness?” How do the individuals behave? What are they likely to do? What communication styles do they use? How verbal or nonverbal are they? Do they show typical physical characteristics, such as a look in the eyes, or a flush on the skin?
From the inside: What sorts of action arise as impulses?


LL:
From the outside: How do members appear to feel, are there feelings they all appear to have? What are they likely to say, are there commonalities there? What are their shared values? What are their “cultural norms?” What injunctions are they operating within? Is there a shared “metaphor” for their we-space functioning? What methods do they use for dealing with differences?  What is their attitude toward differences?
From the inside: How do they feel about one another? How do they feel in relationship to one another? What are trust levels?


LR:
From the outside: What are they doing in the larger world, as a group? What is their relationship to other similar groups? How is “similar” defined? What technology if any are they using to relate? What are the ways they interact, if face to face? Does their we-space persist through time and space? How quickly does their we-space come into existence?
From the inside: What kinds of spontaneous self-organizing emerges? What structures and processes does the group tend to gravitate toward? How is leadership decided?


One can glean other parameters perhaps from my description of How Second-Tier Functioning Might Show Up in Group Processes, and the spectrum of the Master Code in different cultures, and the humorous Spectrum of Eating Consciousness. If no one else does that, I will eventually, and post here.


I would add a new note, that it seems the spiritual line is the “governor” for TURQ and above as developmental stages/worldviews, whereas before that, the cognitive line was the “governor.” By “governor” I mean that line both capped and lead the way, for the developmental stage of any other line. Thus, all descriptions of developmental stages of TURQ and above become “spiritual-heavy” in parameters.

What do you think? I believe having parameters of description will enable us to more intelligently and fruitfully compare and achieve these various we-space states of consciousness, so please contribute your wisdom in comments!!

Added November 23: Coming soon, an exploration of we-spaces as states vs as stages! That is highly relevant when describing a we-space, doncha think?!!

by Rev. Alia Aurami, Ph.D., Head Minister, Amplifying Divine Light in All Church
"Amplifying Divine Light in All" is a completely independent church fostering empowerment of people to co-create loving, thriving God-realized lives, and wellbeing for everyone, on a clean, peaceful Earth.
Our main religious purpose and mission is to amplify the Divine Light in everyone. When you read this article, you will agree or disagree with its various points, and then you will know more about what is true for you. Knowing more of your own Truth amplifies your Divine Light. Thus providing/presenting this article is one way for us to accomplish our purpose and mission. 
This article and our providing/presenting it are therefore a central and essential part of our exercise and practice of our religion. 
None of the contents herein are claimed as absolute truth. They represent one possible perspective which might prove useful for you.

All rights reserved under the Common Law. This means please respect our creatorship.

No comments: