Dear Sadhana, Maria and all,
I appreciate that you have taken time to be thoughtful in your response. I
agree with you completely that meaning is only 'meaningful' in a limited
context and has no absolute truth. For many circumstances, the relative truth
can be completely useful, even though it is limited. Knowing that it is limited
hopefully allows one to make use of what has utility and still be wary of the
traps of over confidence in so-called truths. Language is based on and fraught
with duality and false identities. That is why I like to spend long periods in
silence in the desert each year.
Concepts are mere pointers. They have no independent existence outside of the
whole. Yet, some pointers are more effective than others. When I hear someone
speak, I try to place myself in the position of being the speaker, as if I were
a representative of that person, so that I can try to understand what sort of
space is being occupied there. For instance, my experience is different when I
try to follow your writing logically, than when I try to imagine that I am the
one doing the writing. Perhaps that is another way to express the idea that we
can 'embrace' what someone else is expressing.
From this place where I am now, I think that your first paragraph, particularly
the two sentences below, are a little too strong for my tastes, yet when I step
into the space of your writing that, I can appreciate the perspective you have
expressed.
"To seek meaning in anything is to feed meaninglessness and is a suicidal
movement, one cannot exist without the other. Meaning is life negative."
Being aware of this bond between meaning and meaninglessness offers the
opportunity to give them both a bigger context. From the larger context one can
look at the pair together. One need not invest belief in the meanings, nor sink
into the suicidal resignation of meaninglessness. Noticing the duality begs the
question, what is the greater context that contains both?
Regarding intention, I think it depends on which level one speaks from and
about. From the personal level, I agree with you that intention is an
expression of identity. At the same time, looking from the systemic level,
trusting and moving without intention can still be embedded unconsciously in
the systemic identity and the need to belong. From the level Beyond, the
concept of intention as it is normally used feels too small. There is no way
for me to know the intention of the whole, I can only do as you say, have
courage and trust the movement. And when the limits of my consciousness are
reached, to notice that, stay present and relax into life.
As for Maria's suggestion of embracing judgment, I think it is a very good
first step, but for me does not feel by itself like enough. What is the
continuation of the movement when judgment is embraced? Does embracing judgment
reinforce the identity, or does the judgment reveal itself to be a facet of the
ego-identity-survival complex? Continuing the movement beyond judgment can make
the identity more visible. Seeing beyond identity and our biological survival
needs to find our place within the greater whole is one essential facet of
systemic work.
Regarding my quote, "For a coherent conceptual framework for systemic
constellation, it seems helpful to point to the greater context all the while
knowing that it is essentially beyond our grasp." I think that perhaps there is
a misunderstanding between us on this point, if my reading and feeling into
your expressions are correct. I am suggesting here that we not ascribe
concrete, limited meanings to what is Beyond. That seems to agree with your
expression of avoiding the duality of meaning and meaninglessness.
Rather than being fatalistic, I am actually very hopeful. I see a quickening of
spirit and feel a deepening beyond meaning. I think all the expressions are
true in their own contexts. Perhaps taken together, they point towards a
greater wholeness.
Regards,
Thomas Bryson
On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Kay Needham <familyconstellationinfo@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Thomas,
Thankyou for your kind response, to my question. I have been meditating upon
it for some time now. My meditations and living experience recognises that
"change of meaning" is not transformational, and that it has no roots in
reality. Therefore I say that meaning is not conducsive to growth.
Furthermore I would also venture to reflect upon meaning as a non
environmentally friendly element. To seek meaning in anything is to feed
meaninglessness and it is a suicidal movement, one cannot exist without the
other. Meaning is life negative. The following statement agrees with your
open ended approach which exchanges one hypothesis for another adinfinitum.
"All meaning systems are
open-ended systems of signs referring to signs referring to signs. No concept
can therefore have an ultimate, unequivocal meaning"
Waever
1996:
Changes of meaning are irrelevant to understanding of what is as it is. Life
has no meaning, neither does death. This is looking to the roots of all
identity. Meaning feeds identity, this truth is unequivocal as all truth is.
This is primary. Meaning itself is a mechanistic world view that has
dominated a primary significance of mystery in life............. that
facilitates love, growth, joy and celebration of living. You say
..........................
"the self-concept as it has been generally known throughout human history is
an inadequate model and has been implicated as the essential cause of
suffering."
Meaning is what has created the self-concept however that is not the self.
There is a powerful significance within the individual unit of self minus
meaning, minus identity and minus intention.
You also have written......................
"That means that our intention to be open to the unbroken wholeness, itself
changes the whole, through interpenetration between time, space, movement,
matter, consciousness, light and subtler dimensions."
A big part of the self-concept is driven by intention. This again is not
primary as the mechanistic world view promotes. Intentions are also fed by
meaning and are a substitute for alive unknown response to any given moment.
Intentions are actually reactive and rooted in the past. Intentions have
replaced the primary significance of Courage and trust to move without
intention, in synchronicity with that which guides us................
Thankyou Thomas for your empowering responses and sharing and the recognition
that ...................
"
For a coherent conceptual framework for systemic constellation,
it seems helpful to point to the greater context all the while knowing that
it is essentially beyond our grasp. "
However that does sound a little fatalistic to me and I would like to trust
that fate is what awakens the essential to be within our grasp. I liked it
very much when Maria shared her experiences of embracing judgement. An
embrace is always within our grasp. Thankyou Maria.
Thanks to all for the opportunity to reflect further on these important and
interesting issues of our work.
Kind regards
Sadhana
________________________________
From: Thomas Bryson <tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Woody Allen/judgement
Dear Sadhana and all,
Thank you Sadhana for your interwoven questions. A good question opens up
possibilities through inquiry and
dialogue. I will try to keep it open with my response, which is only an
hypothesis.
In my opinion, transformation at the roots is a change of meaning on the
physical, mental and subtle levels. It is informed by the perception that
everything is an unbroken, moving, interdependent whole.
The assumption that an individual is limited to an independent, inherent
existence is part of a mechanistic worldview, which is true within a limited
frame of reference. Judgement is a protective mechanism arising from that
embodied perspective.
in systemic constellation, the expansion of the concept of individual
identity to recognize the aspect that each is also the essence of their
family system, goes against the commonly held belief in the self-concept. The
family, group or cultural identities merely expand the role of judgement to
defending 'us' instead of 'me.'
The natural movement in systemic thinking is to extend the context further
to include the implications of the theories of relativity and quantum physics
and other subtler dimensions which defy our ability to fully grasp. In those
larger contexts, the self-concept as it has been generally known throughout
human history is an inadequate model and has been implicated as the essential
cause of suffering.
How are we able to transform at the roots? Look to the roots of one's
identity.
How do we go beyond? Leave the identity at the door. In the larger context
which arises in logical systemic thinking, one's personal, family, tribal and
cultural identity is simply one point of reference among many. When one
embodies the perspective that one is the essence of the unbroken whole, then
judgement is seen to be irrelevant.
What we can do, or not do to make transformation happen? One can become open
to transformation through the phenomenological approach, the classic
scientific method, Zen meditation (among many other
valid practices) or simply through being engaged with one's own actual direct
experience as a human and practitioner.
The perception or intuition of the unbroken whole is an intention, an
openness to the implicit hidden behind the explicit. One implication of
relativity and quantum physics taken together, is that the perceiver changes
what is perceived. That means that our intention to be open to the unbroken
wholeness, itself changes the whole, through interpenetration between time,
space, movement, matter, consciousness, light and subtler dimensions.
Thank you,
Thomas Bryson
Munich
On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Kay Needham <familyconstellationinfo@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Thomas and all,transform at the roots? What can we do, or not do, to make transformation
Thomas, are you able to say more about your following sentence, and how we
are able to
happen? How do we go beyond?
Allen/judgement
In my opinion, systemic facilitators or therapists would be well served to
go beyond recognizing and embracing judging and attempt to transform it at
the roots.
To do so, one must overcome the natural human resistance to questioning our
assumptions and identifications.
Kind regards and many thanks,
Sadhana
________________________________
From: Thomas Bryson <tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Woody
needs and to uncover blind spots.
Dear Ed, Maria and others,
The starting point of any observation includes the frame of reference of
the observer.
Judgement takes observation further into ideas of good and bad, which
points back to the emotions and unconscious patterns in the biographic and
systemic legacy of the observer.
It may be something new and healthy for a child to break out of personal
and family habits of repressing emotions and not expressing them.
In a group such as Maria mentions, there can be a container where the group
leader takes the role of parent, allowing the inner children of the
participants to both belong and speak up.
I think it is helpful to recognize that whenever observation has emotional
content that it is being colored by unconscious interpretation.
Through open dialogue there is the opportunity to become more aware of
unconscious habits, fears and
wrote:
Ed's quote points to how widespread is 'judging mind.' Maria endorses
embracing it.
In my opinion, systemic facilitators or therapists would be well served to
go beyond recognizing and embracing judging and attempt to transform it at
the roots.
To do so, one must overcome the natural human resistance to questioning our
assumptions and identifications.
Our observations are simply hypotheses and our judgements may say more
about ourselves than they do about those whom we judge.
If we are unwilling to look inward, we make no progress in reducing the
fragmentation of our selves, clients and society.
Rigid interpretations of right and wrong lead to violence between the good
and the bad, between us and them.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas Bryson
On Jul 24, 2012, at 1:53 AM, Maria Dolenc
Zaquie, Vinay and others,
Thank you all in this subject of Judgements.
I often encourage people in my group to express all judgements to each
other including me in the group , otherwise it goes into repression or
"shadow" side of us.
Thank you Ed for pointing out Bob's saying.
My " judging mind" doesn't stop and i learned to embrace it.
Cheers Maria
On 24/07/2012, at 9:44 AM, ed lynch wrote:
I remember Bob Resnick saying, 9 out 10 people will judge us and
the tenth
one is a liar.
Ed
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Zaquie Meredith <zaquie@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
**
it your
Dear Thomas Bryson,
Thank you for your truth.
To me Judgment seems to be hand in hand with an inflicted Pain (be
own or by others such as somebody caused an accident, forexample)and or
by a set of moral standards we learned.
But! Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!
And so it seems...we all will be judged
Zaquie C Meredith, S.Paulo, Brazil
On 23/07/12 15:13, "Thomas Bryson" <tb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dan, Mishra,
myself. I had left my wife of 31understand
What interests me the most here is the dynamic of judgement. I
I hearand appreciate Zaquie being human and admitting secret judgement.
how muchMishra speaking of social morality, a form of judgement that is
understandable. I appreciate Vinay pointing to the systemic
understanding. And I hear Dan speaking of love in a situation that
probably made people uncomfortable on several levels.
I never understood what it was like to be judged, was unaware of
creating untilI judged others and how much pain I had been unconsciously
I received strong judgement
goodyears and
in mymoved to Germany to be with another woman. This upset many people
andcommunity. It was painful to be judged. Then I felt like a victim
like thejudged them for judging me. Suddenly, I realized that I was just
judgement as ifones who were judging me. I decided to let them carry the
relief tothey were representing it in my constellation. It was a great
doesnot have to carry judgement anymore.
Judgement says much more about the person who is judging than it
about the one who is judged. Despite social norms, views of
other was a well-known writer. Theyand
aboutevil, and social justice - we each walk our own paths. My opinion
together foryour path is relevant only to the extent that our paths are
do tosome time. I cannot know your inner requirements or what you must
Massachusetts.come back into a greater wholeness.
Blessing to all,
Thomas Bryson
On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Dan Booth Cohen, PhD wrote:
In the 1980s, I was friendly with a Lesbian couple in
One was
a high school teacher; the
tragedy. In their case, lovehad been
their 35thtogether several years. Now married, they recently celebrated
J. wasanniversary together. Theirs was originally a summer romance.
shock,25, the
Assistant Director of a summer camp. C. was a 15 year-old camper.
Imagine
the scandal and outrage they faced in the mid 1970s.
Knowing them years after, when both families had overcome their
this isit
seemed like love had overcome the Order. Hellinger wrote that
the
beginning and the end of all
folksendured.
Vinay
Dan
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve ;
Gunther
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:20 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ConstellationTalk] Woody Allen
Hey
teachers?woman 35
Interested to hear some perspectives on this. Woody Allen...Soon
Yi...we all
know the story. Is it pedophilia, or just a guy marrying a
sentiment.years
his junior who happened to be adopted for a while?
My wife refuses to see Woody Allen movies, and I can get her
essentiallyPeople seem to have just by passed the whole affair, and
seems toforgiven Woody. Theres no doubt, he is a great filmaker, and
continue to make good films (though I havent seen them since the
debacle).
is a
So from a constellation view - well, it seems pretty clear he
part of aperpetrator. The facilitator however doesnt just join the general
condemnation, but sees things systemically. Honouring every
intosystem, acknowledging the loyalty ties, the children who step
issue asrescue
the system, etc.
But how does that place us in contemplating, socially, such an
see himthis? And does anyone out there boycott his films...or do you
kind of.as,
well, just a flawed human being, like the rest of us, well,
we would
Many friends I know who are horrified at pedophilia dont have any
hesitation
at seeing Woodys latest movie.
Do you think one has to separate the man from the art, or else
Andprobaby boycott a great deal of art, historic and contemporary.
their rocksvarious
psychotherapies as founded by various dirty old men getting
categoryoff
on young women. And a number of spiritual groups fall in that
as
well. Can we seperate out good teachings from bad
Good films
hearingfrom
unethical filmakers?
I dont know, it all seems very complex to me, and interested in
other perspectives.
Vinay
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
J. Edward Lynch, PHD
Advanced and Beginner Systemic Constellation Trainings
Nov., Jan., Mar., May., in Connecticut
Four 4 day Modules, for more info:
www.systemicinstitute.com
breakers2@xxxxxxxxx
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maria Dolenc
0425 277 279
mariadolenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.mariadolenc.com.au
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
