Sunday, June 10, 2007

Collective 3-2-1

I was thinking about the 3-2-1 Process or moving from It (Talking to) to You (Talking With/Dialogue) to I (Identification) as a means of re-embracing dispersed, disjointed parts of the self.

The thought occurred to me about whether the same process could be used on say other cultures, religious groups, history, political parties, idea movements?

The Process would not then be aimed at the inner self (or really selves) but rather the world at large. The dissociated social selves perhaps?

I think this could help with Mark Edwards relevant critique of a lack of 2nd-person points of view in the AQAL system. Particularly outside the formal moments of dialogue. A 2nd person You not immediately translated into I-Thou/We.

The 3-2-1 Process I like because it keeps the 2nd person as two dialogue partners not necessarily morphed into a "We." At least not unilaterally so as is the temptation into too quickly sliding from 2nd person You and I to We. There is a difference; it is fluid no doubt. But there is a difference and a boundary that upholds that difference.

Too quickly moving to We particularly for those raised in an English-speaking word and in integral circles for those in integral-speak, can cause one to assume the other is very much if not identical to oneself. It is We.

But if we really stick with that 2nd person position than the move to the 1st person, where there is identification becomes stronger, longer lasting I feel. This Collective 3-2-1 might reveal parts of us that somehow connect with the others. Or shows the self/other distinction to be appropriate from one angle, not from another.


Post a Comment

<< Home