Challenges in Integral Noetic Communications
I don't know about you but in my integral (sensory and parasensory) communications exchanges with carnate and discarnate entities -- both individuals and groups -- I have experienced as many as six kinds of messages, many of them metaphoric therefore usually ambiguous and often subject to misunderstanding. These messages may include:
o What I consciously intend to communicate
o What I unconsciously communicate through my body language and/or parasensually.
o What the other entity within the parameters of their conditioned frame-of-reference perceives I am trying to communicate
o What the other entity consciously intends to communicate
o What the other entity unconsciously communicates through body language and/or parasensually.
o What I within the parameters of my conditioned frame-of-reference perceives the other entity is trying to communicate.
(Note: If you would prefer to read this blog in larger print you may access by going to the attachment by the same title.)
You may want to note that by the term "sensory" I include the five perceptual systems of conscious awareness, namely, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting (some scientists believe there are actually fifteen senses within these five perceptual systems, Bartley, 1972).
In using the term "parasensory" I mean to include the five parasensory perceptual systems of conscious awareness. Sometimes lumped in the words "intuition" or "sixth sense", they include paraseeing, parahearing, paratouching, parasmelling and paratasting.
In employing the term "entity" I include other animals (including human), discarnates and our infinite, timeless, omnipresent Source and/or its "Zero Point" representative which, depending on one's belief system, may or may not be theistic.
I suspect that in just the brief introduction above I may have 'lost' some readers. Does that make me a 'lousy communicator'? Maybe. Intelligent readers who are knowledgeable in fields of study other than consciousness, the neurosciences, psychology and communications may find my words ambiguous, even unintelligible. Of course, if your field of expertise is law, medicine, quantum physics or some other profession I would probably find your writings relatively unintelligible. In other words, every discipline has its own conceptual system replete with its own unique vocabulary which serve as barriers to ready and easy communications with their lay public.
Of course, as you probably already know, reasons for our veritable 'tower of Babel' could go on almost ad infinitum. For example, some words in an unabridged American English dictionary have a wide array of definitions, some of which may have opposite meanings. Compare some words with those in English dictionaries in other countries such as England, Australia and Ireland and you may find even more meanings. And I haven't even begun to describe what happens to the intended meaning of an author when her or his work written in English is translated into the languages of other cultures or, conversely, works by authors of other cultures are translated into one form of English or another.
So, what to do?
I START WITH AN ASSUMPTION OF INHERENT EXISTENTIAL CONFLICT
My experience is consistent with Riane Eisler's (1988) when she writes, "There will probably always be conflict in [some] human affairs if for only the reason that I’m hungry when you’re thirsty, I want to sleep when you want to get up, I want to go left when you want to go right."
And I could add to her list: There will probably always be conflict in our communications if for only the reason that I want to communicate with you from my semantic frame-of-reference when you want to interpret me from yours.
So the basic issue is not conflict per se, but rather how I respond to it In other words, viewed positively, conflict can be perceived as a mutual challenge, a friendly competition, a spark of life. Only when friendly conflict is overused or misused does it become violent, dysfunctional and unhealthful.
Learning to consciously and cocreatively manage selection of my responses to conflict in a centered, balanced, healthful, empathetic way has been for me a realistic and beneficial intention in facilitating the transformation and development of individuals, partnerships, families, groups, and large corporations toward more mutual understanding and integrally healthful relationships. I suggest this view be also considered for facilitating the transformation of communities, cultures, humanity-at-large, and ecosystems.
So how can we reduce the dissonance, hence preclude escalation of friendly conflict to destructive violence caused by misunderstanding, in our inter-entity communications and make ourselves better understood and appreciated by each other?
'Tools' I have found useful in my personal and professional life, in which I have facilitated a few thousand intensive workshops on integral conflict management and communications in corporations and MBA courses, include these seven:
1. Clearing One's Soul to Discover Our Oneness
2. Centering, Scoping and Integrating Dualities
3. Empathetic Intercommunicating
4. Individual Johari Window Concept
5. Group Johari Window Processes
6. Forty Options for Responding to Conflict
7. Continua of Integral Leader-Follower Relationships
Following is a brief introduction to each.
1. CLEARING ONE'S SOUL TO DISCOVER OUR ONENESS
I use the following affirmational meditation process to clear my soul of unwanted involuntarily learned beliefs, values, behaviors which may be blocking my experience of oneness with our Source and other beings, inherent health, free thinking, cocreativity, and empathetic communications effectiveness, etc.
A) I am a vital center of our infinite ageless Source of all, as is/are the soul(s) I am communicating with. At the highest, deepest and broadest of our existence we are all connected (just as fish in an ocean are all connected by the water).
B) I am not any temporal feeling, thought, behavior, identity or possession;
C) I transcend, own and include in my repertoire all my temporal feelings, thoughts, identities, behaviors and possessions as options;
D) I intend to co-creatively manage the use of my options in a way mutually healthful to myself, other entities, and our ecosystem;
E) I am open to feedback from the other(s) through my body, dreams, other entities and ecosystem on how well I am doing relative to my intentions. I make adjustments to my intentions and actions as wanted.
Once I've completed clearing myself of attachments, identifications and addictions to temporal beliefs, values, attitudes, motives, behaviors and possessions I center and balance myself as a base for scoping my freest range of healthful options.
CENTERING, SCOPING AND INTEGRATING DUALITIES
o If I experience all situations from my free inner ‘place’ of centered, balanced, healthful, transparent, timeless consciousness,
o My every interpretation of each perception is an option on continuaa bridging and integrating dualities.
o My every response to every interpretation is an option with consequences for which I am accountable only to the extent I have personal control of those consequences.
o Each consequence may be controllable, only influenceable, or completely uncontrollable, relative to realizing mutually empathetic communications, integral health and understanding.
o In light of all the above, I am consciously aware the widest scope of my existentially available options includes five families of choices: compete, transcend, participate, flee, and resign, the centermost option being to empathetically participate with the other(s) in trusting and open communications.
For further information about these five families of options see my SIA post titled "40 Options for Responding to Conflict: An Integral Noetic Perspective" at http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/2467
Note this doesn't necessarily mean being one must be absolutely and completely open and trusting with the other, but just enough to successfully communicate and cocreatively accomplish your business together in ways integrally healthful for you both, society and our ecosystem.
EMPATHETIC INTERCOMMUNICATING
Obviously the kind of empathetic communication one does face-to-face is going to differ some from the kind we do through our blogs and shares here on SIA. In the interest of keeping this blog as brief as possible (hazarding the loss of some meaning) I am simply going to give you a checklist of some general characteristics of effective empathetic intercommunicating I employ and ask you, if you want, to decide how you would adapt them to your face-to-face conversations and other types of communications, such as blogs, emails, telephone, and parasensory messages (I'm tempted to include 'smoke and drum signals' but didn't succumb :-)
MY EMPATHETIC COMMUNICATOR'S CHECKLIST
When taking part in a one-to-one conversation or small group discussion I remember that but for the 'luck-of-the-draw' I could have been the transtemporal soul functioning through the other temporal personality and, conversely, they could have been me. With that reminder I periodically go through this checklist . . .
1. When meeting with a person face-to-face I prepare myself physically by sitting in such a way as to clearly see and hear the other person(s).
2. I watch the speaker as well as closely listen empathetically to her or him.
3. I try to refrain from deciding, based on the other’s appearance and delivery, whether what he or she has to say is worthwhile.
4. I make an attempt to listen or read their written material primarily for feelings and ideas.
5. I try to recognize my own bias(s) and transcend them in order to more accurately and fairly comprehend what the other individual(s)is/are trying to communicate.
6. I try to focus without straying from what the other is feeling/saying.
7. I refrain from interrupting immediately if I hear a statement I feel is factually wrong?
8. Before expressing my response I try to make reasonably sure I have understood the other’s feelings and point of view
9. I deliberately defer evaluating and judging the other’s character until I have reliable evidence sufficient to let me know I can do so empathetically and equitably (unless, of course, emergency judgments are necessary due to a situation in which my safety or that of others in my care is in harm's way.)
10. I attempt to make sure I understand by reflecting his or her feelings and ideas back to them in my own words before proceeding with a response.
11. When the other uses an unfamiliar word or phrase, I try to tactfully ask him/her to stop and explain it to me
12. I tactfully ask the speaker to repeat something I have not clearly heard because of an outside distraction
13. I empathetically decide on which behavior(s) – directive, participative, non- directive or some blend thereof – will be most effective in relating to him or her
14. I refrain from having the last word
As you may already know, few virtues are more prized and appear less practiced in inter-entity communications than empathetic listening. This checklist, though by no means complete and sometimes overlapping, has helped me develop empathetic listening habits.
EXAMPLES OF EMPATHETIC LISTENING RESPONSES
Following are some options I use for expressing empathy in my listening responses. I feel to convey empathy it is vital I try to accurately reflect the feeling tone expressed by the other to give them a sense of my sincere interest in understanding them and avoid coming across to them as judgmental. I have found judgmental behavior usually serves to raise defenses which can become blocks to mutually empathetic communications with the other party.
It seems totally hopeless right now
It’s frightening to . . .
That seems unfair to you that . . .
That’s embarrassing for you to . . .
I hear you saying you’re unhappy with . . .
Seems you’re sure that . . .
You seem disturbed about . . .
Are you saying you’re so frustrated you . . .?
I’ll bet that’s frustrating
I get the idea, you want to . . . is that right?
I think I understand (rephrase what other has said) Is that it?
I sense you’re irritated with me because . . .
You’re upset with me because . . .
You wish I would . . .
You feel lonely right now because . . .
You hate it when I refuse to give you an answer.
You’re really clear about that. Your father . . .
You’re confused . . .
You hate that . . .
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean you’re disappointed that . . .?
You look worried about . . . are you?
You sound like you feel anxious about . . .
You mean you’re afraid of . . .
You’re feeling unfair against . . . ?
I sense you may feel upset about . . .
I guess you wish . . .
Sounds like you’re excited about . . .
That sounds to me like you’re sad about . . .
I see, you that you hoped she would . . . is that right?
INTRODUCTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL JOHARI WINDOW
If unfamiliar with the Johari Window it was named after the two social psychologists who invented it -- Joe Luft and Harry Ingham (1970). Their window of communications modes features four flexible panes: open, blind, hidden and unknown (see attached Individual Johari graphic titled "A View of Integral Human Communications Options").
The more trust between communicators the more openness in the window and less blindness (as in 'blind spots' -- something so close to one she or he cannot see it); less hiddenness (due to fear and distrust); and less unknown data (due to ignorance). Conversely, the larger the panes representing blind spots, hidden and unknown data the smaller the open pane of communications and commensurately less trust is felt hence less openness during communications processes.
OPEN PANE
This is the pane in the window which has to do with empathetic, trusting, free and open communications of information appropriate for all kinds of individuals and groups.
BLIND PANE
This is the pane in the window which is often perceived as personally risky because it concerns one's unconscious blind spots relative to beliefs, values, motives, attitudes, and behaviors which one was involuntarily conditioned (enculturated) to hold as true. Discovering and transcending personal blind spots can be useful in soul transformation and development, usually best facilitated by a skilled counselor.
HIDDEN PANE
This is the pane in the window concerned with one's private life space involving data which we share only to the degree we trust the other(s) to refrain from hurting us with it. We open and close this part of the window to the degree we trust those with whom we are communicating.
UNKNOWN PANE.
This is the pane in the window which concerns interpersonal and personal information. On the interpersonal level it concerns unknown information about others. On a personal unconscious level it concerns data available only through deep meditation, the study of one's dreams, free association, hypnosis, telepathy, etc.
With that brief overview of the four flexi-panes in the Johari Window let's now take a look at an example of how the JW can be used in understanding group dynamics and communications.
INTRODUCTION TO THE GROUP JOHARI WINDOW
It perhaps goes without saying that all groups start somewhere. Generally, because of the unknowns existing among participants in new groups the psychospiritual climate can be characterized as usually more or less superficial, anxious, uptight, stilted, defensive-offensive, engaged in small talk, preoccupied with power issues, confused and significantly leader-dependent.
A New Group
The flexible four panes in the Johari Window (see Group Johari attachment titled "Options for Integral Noetic Group Communications") generally reflect the psycho-spiritual-emotional climate described above: relatively little openness exists among group members; there is a lot hidden, blind and unknown.
A Poorly Functioning Group
But new groups typically move in one of two directions: either toward becoming an even more poorly functioning group in which the psycho-spiritual-emotional climate is characterized by phoniness, distrust, constriction, apathy, frustration, hurtfully competitive, passive listening,and avoidance of meaningful issues.
The flexible four panes of the Johari Window reflect this climate: relatively less trust and openness than in the new group and the blind, hidden and unknown panels have gotten larger.
An Optimum Functioning Group
The other option open to new groups is the optimumly functioning group in which the psycho-spiritual-emotional climate is characterized more or less by empathy, trust, mutual support, emphasis on experience, spontaneity, lucidity, experimental interests, active listening, participation, good humor and cocreative problem solving.
The four panes in the Johari Window reflect this climate by showing a bigger open communications pane than the others.
ONE WAY TO USE THE JOHARI WINDOW
There are many ways to use the Johari Window for increasing trust, opening up group communications and increasing effectiveness. I will share one here which I have found most productive (approximately 98% productive as assessed in writing by participants) with a wide variety of work teams in business, health care and academic environments.
My first step is to sit down with a work team supervisor at her or his request to clarify broad 'umbrella' intentions for a eambuilding meeting which will usually be for a full day (for starters) and take place in a comfortable 'living room' environment in a good hotel. The supervisor pays for the room, lunch and snacks of her or his budget.
These umbrella intentions are usually broad and include, for example, the following:
1. To come away with intentions for improved communications between my work team and myself (the supervisor) which will include:
a. A conceptual and experiential process for clearing my psyche of unwanted barriers to communications plus introductory experience with integrating dualities and choosing options for empathetic communications.
b. A conceptual and experiential understanding of the Johari Window as applied to our work team and its functioning both in terms of our business and technical tasks and interpersonal communications processes.
2. To jointly identify our team's strengths and areas of improvement relative to both task and process issues.
3. To come away with consensus on an action plan for reinforcing our strengths and improving the effectiveness of our work team back in our work place.
4. To set a date and place for another meeting for taking a look at how well we're doing relative to our action plan and for making any necessary adjustments.
OUR INTEGRAL TEAMBUILDING AGENDA
8:00 a.m. Introduction: Intentions and Agenda by the cognizant supervisor and facilitator
(including discussion about our general teambuilding objectives and agenda).
8:30 Concept and Experience using Psyche-Clearing Process(for clearing one's psyche of unwanted barriers to communications, discussion and experiential 'walk-through'. See processes outlined earlier in this blog).
9:00 Concept and Experiential Use of Johari Window
(empathetic communications and experiential exercise. Reach team consensus about their preferred options. See attachments for Individual and Group Johari Window graphics)
10:00-10:15 Morning break
10:15 Concept and Experiential Use of 40 options for Empathetically Responding to Conflict 40 Options for Responding to Conflict: An Integral Noetic Perspective" at http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/2467
(Reach team consensus about their preferred options.)
11:00 Concept and Experiential Use of Leader-Team Relationships Continuaa
(Reach consensus about preferred behaviors. For graphic models see my SIA posts titled
Dilemmas in Integral Noetic Leadership http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/2498 and Empathetic Motivation: Three Integral Noetic Options http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/2759)
12 Noon. Team lunch in hotel restaurant
1:00 p.m. Team Exercise: Our Strengths and Desired Improvements (during all afternoon agenda experiences we use processes introduced during morning session).
3:00 Afternoon break.
3:15 Team Exercise: Priorities Rrelative to Improvements.
4:00 Team Exercise: Formulate Action
4:45 Team Evaluation of Meeting
(Process the events of the day, including things we did well and things we want to do better next meeting.)
5:00 Finis
CONTINUA OF INTEGRAL LEADER-FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIPS
I debated on whether it would be best discuss leader-follower relationships before the Johari Window or after. Actually, compelling arguments could be made for both. As you can see "after" won.
Rather than repeat here a blog I have already written I am referring you to "Dilemmas in Integral Noetic Leadership." http://www.shiftinaction.com/node/2498. That blog will take you into a full discussion of Continua of Integral Leader-Follower Relationships.
Yours with empathy and trust in evidence-based integral natural science and our infinite, timeless, omnipresent, nurturing mysterious Source of all communications.
Bob Johnston
P.S. If you are unable to access the attachments to this blog feel free to write to me at omnimind@admin.umass.edu.
REFERENCES
Bartley, S Howard (1972). "What is Perception?" a paper in Consciousness: The Brain, States of Awareness and Alternate Realities, Editors Daniel Goleman and Richard J. Davidson (1979). N.Y.: Irvington Publishers.
Eisler, Riane (1988). The Chalice & The Blade. San Francisco: Harper and Row
Johnston, Robert Wayne (1978). The Integral Leader-Manager Process Workbook -- Finding the Changeless to Better Respond to the Changing. Los Angeles: Western Gear Publications.
Joseph Luft (1970). Group Processes. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Press.
