What's that?

A lot of noise between two silences is how Isabelle Allende refers to the time between birth and death. Who am I and what is it all about wander round our minds throughout this noise. All there is is now is confused by what has gone before and what is yet to come. The filter of judgement feeding our emotions and letting us know if what we are experiencing is good or bad. We cycle through purpose and wondering what is the point with no real understanding of how we shift from one to the other. All of us spending time thinking there must be a better state than we are currently in. Leo my two year old grandson says all the time now 'what's that?' nods approvingly if the answer makes sense and looks quizzically if it doesn't quite fit. I love the phrase and wish there was someone to answer the question for me with more than fifty years behind me. What is it all about?
Some things are clear. We are here to perpetuate our species and improve its ability to survive in the environments of the day. Survival and reproduction are two of the objectives of the human organism. Survival is a tricky business with the requirement of a very limited range of atmospheres and environments that can sustain us. Change the quality of our air or move our body temperature outside a 5 deg range and we struggle. Most of the survival job is done automatically with our bodily systems bringing our heartbeat, blood pressure, temperature and physiology back in to balance when they go astray. This all happens below the surface with little or no participation by our conscious mind. Then there is the conscious layer contributing to the task. There are debates that will run awhile about the role it plays in volition. In one camp Libet and his followers seeing the conscious layer as a post event rationalisation of what occurred to file a memory of understanding for future survival tasks. The other camp Wegner seeing it as the instrument of free will and our ability to choose what we are going to do. Experientially it is the most present with over 60,000 thoughts a day whizzing round our minds, analysing, judging, learning and deciding. The two camps deep in conversation about the role of the conscious layer in any decision made. I think I can live with either argument being true. If my unconscious mind has actually made the decision before I consciously think about it I should be ok with that as it controls most of the important physiological decisions for my survival. If it is my conscious mind in control there is some comfort there also as it consumes so much of my waking time. It would be good to know which one is true as it would allow us to increase the enjoyment of the good aspects of being conscious.
Reproduction presents its own challenges. Floods of estrogen and testosterone course through our bodies in cycles driving us to take the species forward. Moods, misunderstandings, orgasm, moral questions and societal norms all fed by this pre programmed cocktail mix. The interaction of these chemical balances with the conscious and unconscious mind determining how we feel at any moment in time. The problem for us is we do not understand the formula for this brew. We experience the state as frustration, anger, pleasure, happiness or some other emotion and boy do we feel it. Whatever the feeling we then need to explain it and create all sorts of stories to find a reason. These are at the heart of many of our unhappiest moments as we explain away an internal chemical recipe by having a go at ourselves for something we have done. The reality is probably something else and we feel as we do because of the current chemical balance we hold.
It could all be about the life of a plant. We respond to the environment seeking sunshine, salt, water, air and sustenance growing roots, leaves and moving towards helpful stimulus and away from harm. Buddhist advice to see our thoughts as just that and a route to something better could be so wise. The natural processes of the mind fight or question this idea as it searches for meaning and gives its quizzical look when dissatisfied with the answer to 'what's that?'.

Reflections on a Rumi Poem (3)

We are bound together.
I am the ground
You are the step.
How unfair is this Love?
I can see Your world
but You I cannot

I like this notion of being bound together with something I think of as good. I and you interplay with the thought of being bound. Being grounded is something I want to be so I relate positively to the idea of being the ground and step gives the idea of stepping up to something higher. The answer to the question could be not unfair at all or unfair. If we are bound together and You are part of me and I am part of You then it makes little sense to want something different. So the love is fair. If You and me are the same but different and judgement comes in to play then maybe there is unfairness. I sit more easily with the first interpretation and see a fair Love. If I can see Your world but You I cannot then that feels good as part of a journey to something better.

Reflections on a Rumi Poem (2)

First, he tempted me
with infinite caresses.
He burnt me in the end
with pain and sorrow.
In this game of chess
I had to lose myself
in order to win him

My thoughts run round this poem seeking meaning. I am drawn in to the idea of being tempted in to something I want. The infinite caresses are touching me and inviting me towards something desirable. These could be promises people make about the power of harmony of self with environment and self with self (or realisation of no self) or some other form of enlightenment. I recoil at the idea of being burnt with pain and sorrow in the end. It gives me an image of moth attracted to the bright light of a flame and then burnt as it lands on the flame. Chess conjures up openings, mid game and end game and the poem suggests the early parts of the game are more enjoyable than the end. I am seeking to find a desirable aspect of the pain and sorrow but it does not come. Losing myself and giving up ego to attain enlightenment is the advice. Does this mean if I do so I end up with pain and sorrow? This idea clearly bothers me. I am bothered by ‘burnt’, ‘end’ and ‘pain and sorrow’. There is something going on in me that does seek a better state and so I show interest when people tell me they have found it. Losing a self to win him makes some sense from the reading I have done but is still an idea floating in and out of the mist ahead. I am left wondering what the poem is telling me. Is it hinting the journey is not worth it or is it hinting at some use of being burnt with pain and sorrow? I will come back to this one another day.

Reflections on Rumi Poems

Dear Heart, where do you find

the courage to seek the Beloved

when you know He has annihilated

so many like you before?

I do not care, said my heart,

my only wish is to become

one with the Beloved

When I first read this I am struck by the questions it raises for me. What or who is the Beloved for me and what is my heart? The first insight that hits me is the notion of heart and Beloved being one and the idea of not caring how this comes about. As I think about it some more the Beloved for me could be attaining peace with the world and being totally comfortable with who and where I am. The heart is my compassionate self that is in some way separate from my thinking me. Now I notice the word annihilated and wonder at the thought that so many have sought enlightenment and failed. So I could be asking why my heart seeks this solace when my thinking self sees the likelihood of failure. I like the response of my heart and wish I could learn how he does this. As I write this I feel like I am in a riddle of the selves. I want to let my heart become one with the Beloved but always tussle with my thoughts asking how and throwing his obstacles in my way. It occurs to me that so many are annihilated by themselves. Although paradoxical the view of the Beloved as a state of self allows this tautology or conundrum as we both allow the conditions for success but are also the main obstacle. It now rests with me that becoming one with the Beloved is about allowing myself to be. Don’t question, challenge or rate the odds just allow myself to be and follow where my wish takes me.

Parallels Between Gestalt and NonViolent Communication (NVC)

I am struck by the parallels between Gestalt and NVC. Both start with description. In Gestalt you cannot see that someone is happy you can only describe their physical features and describe what 'is'. You must accept they may be happy, sad or something else and if you want to know which then you must ask them. There can be no judgement. In NVC there is non judgemental observation and description of what is taking place in a situation. In both approaches this one step is immensely powerful to help relationships between people.
In Gestalt there is scanning of yourself to notice your sensing, meaning making, intuition and emotions. Noticing the distinctions of each brings richness to the experience you are having and gives insight for any situation you are in. NVC considers what we feel in relation to what we observe and again applies non judgemental description. Insight arises from what our feelings are telling us through this form of description. Both approaches bring the power of recognising what our emotions are telling us.
NVC then moves to understand what needs are creating our feelings. Gestalt works hard to help someone describe very precisely what they want.. Sounds easy but it is often surprising what we find out when we look closely at this question. Wars are started, relationships broken and extreme violence often occur around misunderstandings of wants, desires and needs. Immense healing is available with powerful use of this process.
The final move in NVC is in the request we make to enrich our lives. Built from none judgmental descriptions of observation, feeling and wants there is always a request that can be constructed that is nonviolent in nature and positively moves the world forward. In Gestalt seeking to complete what is incomplete is a possible parallel. Helping people finish the most troubling piece of unfinished business enables people to grow and move on to something new.
Thanks to Dorothy for drawing me in to explore NVC. I welcome thoughts from others on these powerful ways of being in the world.

Reflections on Gestalt - Change

Arnold Beisser wrote an article in 1970 entitled ‘The Paradoxical
Theory of Change’. In it he stated ‘that change occurs when one
becomes what he is, not when he tries to become what he is not’. It
is paradoxical in the sense that a person can change and start to
become something he is not only when he truly knows what he is. It is
a lynchpin of the Gestalt approach and one of the clearest
descriptions of an idea originally set out by Fritz Perls.
I will here reflect on what this means in a coaching relationship and
invite you to add your own thoughts. An individual who seeks coaching
will often state their requirement as a need to change for some
reason. It could be to work better with colleagues, gain a promotion
or take a new direction in what they do. The role of the coach is to
help the individual achieve the change he wants. The Paradoxical
Theory of Change tells us that the most powerful way to do this is to
help him describe exactly where he is now. By doing so the client
gains insight and understanding about the attributes and
characteristics he currently exhibits and begins to see how these
might get in the way of the change he wants. In many Gestalt coaching
sessions a client will begin to realise that many of the obstacles to
the progress he wants are present within who and what he is at that
moment. When this occurs it is a great and helpful discovery as the
client can be shown that he has control over changing things that are
going on inside him. In fact he has much more control over this than
he has over the often originally perceived idea that it is something
or someone else that is getting in the way.
The other aspect of interest in this theory is the constant flipping
of the client between a state he ‘should’ be in and the state he ‘is’
in. Invariably the client is in neither state but hangs somewhere in
between. Making the shift to a clear description of what ‘is’ will
give the client a powerful grounding from which he can then consider
changing.
Finally it is noticeable that the ‘problem’ or ‘need for change’ cited
by the client up front is often not the most important thing to fix
for the growth and development of the client. It is always related to
where the client actually is in that moment. The role of the coach is
to help him describe this in as much rich detail as is possible.
What thoughts does this prompt for you?

Reflections on Being

It is so easy to write the word 'being'. And yet there is so much wrapped up in this short arrangement of letters. On one level it is one of the most complex ideas around. On another it is the simplest. We are 'being' all the time we are alive. What could be easier than that? It is as we dig deeper and start to describe it that the mystery begins. Consider the difference between being a plant and being a person. How would you describe that difference? The plant comes in to existence, grows, responds to the environment, reproduces, lives and dies. It is certainly aware but how much consciousness does it have? We know it is aware because it responds to light and dark, to hot and cold and to wet and dry. Is this response just a reflex or is there some consciousness involved? How would you distinguish between a reflex and a conscious response? Most people will opt for the reflex idea but will have difficulty explaining why this is so. At the other extreme we have human awareness and consciousness. People will generally say they have volition and a conscious filter where choice takes place after awareness. We believe that we choose our responses to the world. But do we? There is now evidence in neuroscience to show us that prior to the conscious decision to take an action the choice has already been made in the preconscious processes of the brain. Some neuroscientists now believe that consciousness is nothing more than a post event rationalisation of what took place. Its use is to create a memory for use by our internal cognitive reflex responses in some future situation. An extreme position on human beings is that they are a stimulus reflex response organism in just the same way a plant is. The difference is the level of sophistication of the machinery doing the pre reflex work. Or perhaps a plant has more consciousness than we think. It could be that enlightenment in meditation is when we achieve the level of awareness of a plant. Being is so simple if we let ourselves just be. What do you think?