Hi everyone,
When we think from the point of "primary" we embed ourselves in a world view
that is predominantly Western. In some other cultural contexts the word
primary is contrary to both the world view and to the expression of self. I
believe that my own indigenous Sami ancestors interpreted the world from a
point of view of being one with all else. Primary and dominant are contrary to
that perspective. If one is equal to and part of a universal system that is
inclusive, then the Western style of thinking of things in a pyramid kind of
structure have no meaning.
What if we set up some of the intellectual ideas that arise out of the work of
constellations as constellations themselves? Ideas perpetuate from a learned
way of processing information. The landscape upon which we lay out thoughts is
one that we can examine and perhaps has some benefit if we were to look at it.
Love and hugs to each of you, Anni
--- In ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert Grant <erebees@...> wrote:
Hi Thomas and All,
Thanks for your reply. I have enjoyed your relaxed style of
contemplation. To me primary is akin to dominant. And the dominant
experience is mine � if I can keep my awareness awake. The magical
however seems to reside on a different plane, where mine is no longer
separate or separable.
Best wishes,
Robert
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Thomas Bryson <tb@...> wrote:
Dear Michael,
I would agree with you that 'primary' is an artifact of logical thought. It
is a conceptual abstraction, appropriate in some contexts, irrelevant in
others. Appropriate when it points a client away from a secondary repeating
pattern of behavior into feeling the primary emotion that is hidden
underneath. Irrelevant perhaps from the view from Beyond.
When the question 'what is primary' is asked and one doesn't seek an answer
to the question, the question functions to open a space. Even though the
term primary may have a limited context where it is appropriate, the asking
can still function as a koan, as a step beyond knowing.
Whether the Beyond is called holomovement, a non-local, a-temporal network
or morphic field, the Beyond stays beyond cognition and is resistant to our
efforts to grasp it.
By occupying the space that is opened by any good question and one does not
collapse the possibilities through conceptual thinking, a deeper meeting
between observer and observed can take place - a meeting where you and I
can recognize that what is looking out my eyes is precisely the same as
what is looking out your eyes. Even though what is actually looking remains
ungraspable.
Rather than thinking that something 'goes out the eyes' as in the classical
model, it seems to me more like a local recognition of the non-local
reality. My view is that through the recognition of oneness of
consciousness, spirit or whatever it is, that there is actually increased
freedom for individuation. That is perhaps one of the delicious paradoxes
we find in systemic thinking and practice.
Alone. All One.
Thomas Bryson
