Writings and Publications
Articles
Hedlund, N. (2003). "The eco-social crisis: Culture, ecology, and the nonlinear dynamics of global change," Unpublished honors thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Hedlund, N. (2004). "Biodiesel and the project of the twenty-first century," in Returns, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Belser, E. & Hedlund, N. (2004). "Synergy of the americas: A model for biodiesel production," University of Colorado at Boulder, CU Biodiesel Web site: www.cubiodiesel.org
Hedlund, N. (2008). "Integrally researching the integral researcher: A first-person exploration of psychosophy's holding loving space practice," in Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1-57.
Hedlund, N., Luftig, J., & Patten, T. (forthcoming). "Guide to ILP group facilitation," Resource Paper, Integral Institute.
Hedlund, N. (forthcoming). "Awakening the soul of integral praxis: Toward a post-metaphysical cartography of the subtle," Journal of Integral Theory and Practice.
Hedlund, N. (forthcoming). "Advancing integral research: the application of integral principles in mixed methods research," Journal of Integral Theory and Practice.
For a deeper glimpse into the world of Psychosophy and Psychosophy Consulting through the lens of an Integral Research study, I have posted the article Integrally Researching the Integral Researcher: A First-Person Exploration of Psychosophy's Holding Loving Space Practice below.
To download a PDF of the full Journal of Integral Theory and Practice article click here.
To download a PDF of Sean Esbjörn-Hargens' editorial introduction to the article click here.
To download a PDF of the slightly longer JFKU thesis version (including more diagrams and background information) click here.
Integrally Researching the Integral Researcher:
A First-Person Exploration of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space Practice
By Nicholas H. Hedlund, M.A.
Drawing on Integral Theory as a framework for mixed-methods research, this thesis explores a meditation practice known as Holding Loving Space. Holding Loving Space is a foundational practice of an emerging approach to psychological growth and transformation called Psychosophy. As the first-person phase of a larger three phase Integral Research project, the methodologies of phenomenology and structuralism are used to explore the potential of Holding Loving Space practice to support individual transformation and vertical intrapsychic integration in the self-identity line. The value of integrally researching the researcher through first-person inquiry (inside and outside) in preparation for subsequent second- and third-person methodologies is then highlighted and a specific research design framework for conducting Integral Research—the iterative-reflective approach—is presented.
Introduction
Have you ever had the experience of another human just being 100% present for you—completely there—simply listening and holding you in an unconditional presence and awareness—completely resonating with you and getting where you are in the moment? Have you ever felt that you have truly been seen and heard—that you have been understood—that what you are attempting to convey about yourself is empathically felt and known and accepted as it is? And if you have never experienced this 100%, have you had even a partial glimpse of it in your life? To whatever degree you have tasted this experience, what did it engender in you? Perhaps you felt a greater sense of openness, of contact with more of yourself, of safety to feel and even share parts of you that often feel vulnerable to reveal? Perhaps you felt a sense of relaxation, fulfillment, or even joy?
Regardless of what exactly you experienced in this quality of relating, it is held within many psychological and spiritual circles that some version of this general phenomenon, which I will refer to as unconditional presence and acceptance, is an essential element—a sine qua non—for certain kinds of authentic healing, integration, and transformation. We as human beings often need to be met in a space of profound openness, awareness, and empathic resonance before we are willing to relax our defensive personas, allow more of ourselves to come forward, and take an honest perspective on ourselves and the truth of our experience in the moment. For example, highlighting a quality parallel to this unconditional presence and acceptance, the pioneer of modern psychotherapy Sigmund Freud stressed that “an attitude of uncritical self-observation” is crucial for psychoanalysis to effectively proceed. Similarly, Carl Rogers, founder of the humanistic client-centered therapy, developed the concept of “unconditional positive regard,” which he designated as one of the most fundamental conditions necessary for positive change.
In recognition of the power of this unconditional presence and acceptance, an emerging school of psychology and transformation known as Psychosophy has created a sophisticated developmental methodology for inner growth and evolution through which individuals can learn to generate this quality of space for themselves. This technique, known as Holding Loving Space, is the central focus of this research study. As such, the core question to be explored in this article is: what is the potential of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space practice to support individual transformation and intrapsychic integration? While it is beyond the scope of this paper to share the larger context within which this methodology is contained, it is important to note that Holding Loving Space is only a small part of Psychosophy’s Developmental System, and can be mapped as a series of consciousness equations within a model of human experience referred to as the Consciousness Coordinate System (CCS). For more information on the CCS, please see Appendix A and the founder of Psychosophy Scott Hamilton’s forthcoming book, An Introduction to Psychosophy.
To further specify the above question, this study seeks to explore the specific subjective qualities and generative mechanisms related to the integrative and transformational power of Holding Loving Space. In addition to exploring Holding Loving Space exclusively in relation to individual growth and transformation, a secondary interest of this study—following the understanding that individual change is inextricably tied to social change—is to inquire into the ways in which Holding Loving Space might be important with regard to the cultivation of mutual understanding and skillful action-in-the-world. In more differentiated language, it is my intention to explore not only the subjective psychospiritual dimension of Holding Loving Space but also to highlight some possible implications that such practice might have for the realms of intersubjectivity and mutual understanding, objective behavior and practical action, and interobjective eco-social systems.
In the integral community it is widely held that skillful action in service of social and ecological well-being is rooted in a worldcentric psychological capacity to cultivate mutual understanding between multiple perspectives. Mutual understanding, as it is intended here, is the capacity to inhabit, sympathetically resonate with, and effectively coordinate developmentally divergent worldviews so as to facilitate connections, bridge divisions, synthesize positions, and align disparate perspectives toward a common goal. Underscoring this connection between the development of the psychological capacity for mutual understanding and developing healthy eco-social systems, Ken Wilber makes an insightful and persuasive argument that before we can even attempt an ecological healing, we must first reach mutual understanding and mutual agreement among ourselves as to the best way to collectively proceed. In other words, the healing impulse comes not from championing functional fit but mutual understanding. And that depends first and foremost […] on individual growth and transformation.
As Wilber elucidates here, this capacity for mutual understanding is largely a function of individual interior development. But what kind of individual growth and transformation, specifically, is required to foster this? And what are the actual practices that can effectively support the emergence of such development, and thereby the capacity to inhabit the multiple embodied perspectives necessary to cultivate mutual understanding in service of eco-social healing and thriving?
In my view, the core of the developmental foundation upon which this quality of mutual understanding is built requires more than just vision-logic or even Second-Tier self-identity per se; there must also be a relatively high degree of vertical intrapsychic integration of the major First-Tier sub-identities at their respective levels. While there is a cornucopia of practices that support development in a general sense, I am aware of few practical growth technologies that specifically engender such a Second-Tier level of integration of the enduring elements of First-Tier sub-identities within one’s own psyche—and none that have been clearly researched and articulated as such. Therefore, if we lend credence to the above argued connection between this level of intrapsychic integration or embodiment and skillful service in the world, then identifying the practices that facilitate this kind of individual growth and their specific dynamics is crucial if we are to manifest the kind of skillful action demanded by the complex eco-psycho-social challenges of the twenty-first century.
In this overarching research project, it is my intention to explore the potential of Holding Loving Space to support this specific type of growth, which arguably most serves our capacity to co-create mutual understanding and thereby to employ skillful means in service of humanity and the planet. As such, the key sub-question of this inquiry is as follows: to what extent is the quality of awareness engendered through the practice of Holding Loving Space an important foundation for the cultivation of mutual understanding between divergent developmental perspectives and thereby for skillful action in support of planetary well-being?
This research project, while focusing on a particular meditation practice for individuals, nonetheless invokes some very deep life questions: how do we grow and evolve, relate compassionately with others, and skillfully serve in our increasingly complex post/modern world? I have undertaken this study with a sincere yet humble hope that it can contribute something, however small, to these important domains of human understanding and life.
Review of Literature
While a review of contemporary meditation research listed over one thousand publications, virtually none of those studies have explored meditation’s effects on adult development, deep structural transformation, and intrapsychic integration. One notable exception is the work of Charles Alexander and his associates, which has demonstrated the capacity of daily Transcendental Meditation (TM) practice to significantly accelerate vertical development in the self-identity line of young adults. Following the work of Alexander, this study seeks to contribute to the body of research concerning the relationship between specific forms of meditation and growth through the levels of particular lines of development. More specifically, Holding Loving Space practice will be explored with respect to its potential effects in the self-identity line, as articulated by the developmental structuralists Jane Loevinger and Susanne Cook-Greuter. However, in contrast to Alexander’s approach, it is my intention to pursue a mixed-method design that includes and transcends first-, second-, and third-person approaches to research. Following Wilber’s call for a more differentiated and integrated approach to meditation research, this study seeks to go beyond some of the limitations of recent research by pursuing an approach to the exploration of Holding Loving Space meditation that is inclusive of multiple perspective-methods and is grounded in a validated map of the psyche. In order to do so, I will situate my research within the context of Integral Theory.
Integral Theory
Through the course of nearly three decades of extensive cross-cultural research and postdisciplinary scholarship, the American philosopher Ken Wilber and his colleagues have articulated a comprehensive and sophisticated approach to enacting phenomena known as Integral Theory. Integral Theory grounds itself in a non-exclusionary ethos that seeks to honor and include all legitimate aspects of reality—of consciousness, culture, and nature—so as to integrate them into our inquiry and action. Moreover, Integral Theory invites us to situate our research/practice in ongoing relationship with all of the essential aspects of any occasion, which according to Wilber’s “all-quadrant, all-level” (AQAL) approach include the following five key recurring patterns or elements: all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, and all types.
Integral Theory is important for this study for two primary reasons: 1) because it provides a platform for the more comprehensive approach to mixed methods research that will guide my inquiry, as will be articulated in the following section; and 2) because it provides a validated map that designates a clear meaning for the oft used term “transformation” as well as delineates the contours of an integrated psyche. I will use this map as a theoretical backdrop from which to evaluate the efficacy of Holding Loving Space in terms of catalyzing transformation and supporting the emergence of a more integrated psychological territory. This AQAL map of the psyche is grounded in an enormous amount of evidence and therefore establishes a rigorous foundation from which to make psychometric interpretations.
According to the Integral map, transformation, in its narrow definition, can be regarded as a vertical movement or change in deep structure to a higher level of consciousness and complexity in a developmental holarchy. Furthermore, Integral Theory aligns itself with Harvard developmentalist Robert Kegan’s notion that a practice could be considered (vertically) transformative to the extent that it helps to make what was subject (I) object (me) (i.e., “something that I can observe, reflect, and act on”). An integrated psyche, or self-system, from the perspective of the AQAL map, is one that has integrated elements such as: quadrants, levels, lines, states, types, and bodies, as well as the various aspects of the self-sense (including the proximate self [“I”] and its functional invariants, the distal self [“me”], and the antecedent Self [“I-I”]). Therefore, any claim related to an overall or fully integrated psyche, based on the AQAL map, would be an enormously complex phenomenon to evaluate and one that I will not attempt here.
What will be explored in this study, however, is a much more narrow or specific form of integration that relates primarily to the vertical component—namely, levels in the self-identity line—and is what I will refer to as vertical intrapsychic integration (or simply intrapsychic integration). As the proximate self develops through the levels of identity, it differentiates itself from the previous identity structure (transcendence), then attempts to integrate it (and other prior structures) from the immediately higher one (inclusion). This vertical process of inclusion or synthesis of the previous structural levels and their correlative sub-identities within an individual psyche is primarily what I am referring to as vertical intrapsychic integration. Having clarified my use of Integral Theory as a valid map of the psyche from which transformation and intrapsychic integration can be evaluated, let me now discuss its use in structuring an Integral approach to mixed methods research.
Integral Methodological Pluralism as a Framework for Mixed Methods Research
In order to generate a post-metaphysical approach to research, or one that does not postulate a priori ontological structures, Integral Theory uses an epistemological meta-paradigm known as Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). IMP is an aggregate of injunctions intended to practically deliver Integral Theory’s commitment to honor and include all legitimate perspectives, modes of knowing, and aspects of reality. As such, IMP seeks to respect all the major methodologies of human inquiry and research. Guided by the understanding that all methods and perspectives disclose different facets of an inexhaustibly complex, dynamic (and often paradoxical) reality of which no single method can illumine in its totality, IMP proposes that every methodological injunction enacts important (if partial) truth-perspectives that when triangulated and coordinated, begin to paint a more comprehensive picture.
As the inside and outside view (first-person and third-person, respectively) of each of the four quadrants, or fundamental dimension-perspectives, Integral Theory postulates eight basic and irreducible methodological categories (or “hori-zones”) of knowledge acquisition available to human beings: phenomenology and structuralism are methodologies for exploring the interior individual dimension (UL); hermeneutics and ethnomethodology for the interiors of collectives (LL); autopoiesis and empiricism for the exterior of individuals (UR); and social autopoiesis and systems theory for the exterior of the collective (LR). All of these methodologies must be included in a fully Integral approach to research. According to Wilber, “the fundamental claim of AQAL Integral Theory is that any approach that leaves out any of these eight paradigms [or methodological families] is a less-than-adequate approach according to available and reliable human knowledge at this time.” As such, an Integral approach to research must attempt to touch base with as many of these methodological families as possible.
In my larger overarching Integral Research study, I plan to engage six of the eight methodology-practices in order to enact and disclose multiple first-, second-, and third-person perspectives on Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space meditation. However, this article presents only phase one (first-person aspects) of a larger three-phase (first-, second-, and third-person) research project. As such, this phase-one exposition makes use of the first two methodologies (namely, phenomenology and structuralism) and therefore is a first-person inside/outside exploration of my own subjectivity as a researcher of Holding Loving Space. Given this truncation, the above key sub-question (pertaining to mutual understanding and eco-social action) will not be addressed directly in this article. However, to the degree that intrapsychic integration is a key foundation for the cultivation of mutual understanding and skillful eco-social action, it will be addressed indirectly.
Many of the assumptions implicit in my research question and approach overlap with those of Integral Theory and IMP, while some do not. Paralleling the post-metaphysical orientation of Integral Theory, I assume that ontological objects do not exist apart from the structures of the epistemological subject and the methodological injunctions with which they are enacted and therefore disclosed. As such, I assume that my awareness (developmental structures in multiple lines, personality types, temporary states of consciousness) along with the methodologies and methods I use, interact or co-participate with phenomena to bring forth particular aspects of their complexity. Adequate data regarding the structure of my awareness as an epistemological subject enacting perspectives on Holding Loving Space will be specified in this research study so as to make explicit some of the most relevant aspects of my AQAL constellation that impact my research and enactment of Holding Loving Space. With respect to some of my assumptions that do not overlap with Integral Theory, my informal research/practice of Holding Loving Space has disclosed to me preliminary data suggesting that Psychosophy’s practice of Holding Loving Space indeed tends to support growth and development. Such assumptions, in the context of this formal research study, could be problematic if gone unchecked. Therefore, I have actively employed the practice of epoché so as to bracket this assumption (which is indeed an a priori in the context of this formal study) and stay open to whatever emerges as I gather and analyze the data. And a final assumption that I will mention is that there is a vast background of assumptions and pre-understandings that we all bring to the interpretation of each moment and, therefore, the best I can do is to name a few salient ones here.
Having summarized Integral Theory and IMP, as well as some of my pronounced assumptions, it should now be understandable that an important purpose of using a concurrent mixed methods approach in my overarching (three phase) Integral Research study is to better understand the phenomenon of Holding Loving Space by converging both qualitative and quantitative data through the use of multiple first-, second-, and third-person methodologies, since each methodology enacts unique and irreducible aspects of the phenomenon. However, in the context of this initial phase one of my research (to be disclosed in this article), I will discuss my first two modes of first-person inquiry (phenomenology and structuralism). I am doing this not only to pursue a multi-perspectival approach to the aforementioned research question regarding Holding Loving Space but also to highlight the value of integrally researching oneself as a researcher in the context of an Integral Research study.
Such a reflexive approach, as I will attempt to illustrate throughout this paper, allows us, as Integral Researchers, to conduct research that is more meaningful (i.e., post-metaphysical), more emancipatory (i.e., deepening our self-understanding through self-reflection), and more effective (as we apply the a posteriori insights emerging via first-person research to inform, refine, and deepen subsequent inquiry). In service of this general purpose, I will propose a specific research design approach that can be applied within the meta-framework of Integral Research (i.e., a particular way of doing Integral Research). The basic structure of this iterative-reflective approach, as I call it, will be delineated and modeled in the context of my first-person original research, vis-à-vis Holding Loving Space, in Appendix C of this article.
I have conducted this research study within the context of a two-quarter course on Integral Research at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, California, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the three-year Integral Psychology Master’s Program. The first-person (phase one) section of my research was carried out in the five-month period from October 2007 to March 2008.
Having introduced the topic and summarized the theoretical and methodological approach I am employing, it is now appropriate to present phase one of the research used to disclose aspects of the phenomenon of Holding Loving Space. I will begin with the phenomenological inquiry before articulating the structural self-assessment section. Within each section I will frame the methodologies/methodological families used and the methodologically specific research question, describe the design and the particular methods used to deliver and document the data, as well as detail my approach to data analysis. I will then provide a discussion following the data analysis that reflects on the emergent themes, and weaves them into the larger tapestry of perspectives concerning Holding Loving Space and its relationship to transformation and integration. Finally, I will conclude by offering an initial convergence of the data sets before highlighting the importance of self-disclosure and reflexive inquiry in conducting Integral Research.
First-Person Research: Phenomenology and Structuralism
First-person methodologies take as the object of inquiry the interior subjective aspects of the individual, such as somatic, etheric, emotional, mental, and spiritual experience. In this case, they are used to shed light on my individual qualitative experience of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space meditation. The methodology of phenomenology, understood here as a broad category that envelops multiple specific traditions (e.g., Husserlian phenomenology, systematic introspection, etc.), explores the interiors of the individual from the inside, or I-perspective. The phenomenological method of reconstructive self-inquiry is used in this study to enact, describe, and explain various aspects of my own direct, felt experience of Holding Loving Space. Restated within the context of phenomenological inquiry, the research question is as follows: what is my personal connection and lived experience of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space meditation in relation to transformation and intrapsychic integration?
In contrast to phenomenology, the methodology of structuralism explores the interior subjective aspects of the individual from the outside, or it-perspective. Structuralism does not inquire directly from the subjective worldspace but rather looks at it from a third-person vantage so as to identify various patterned dynamics, or structures, that function as both a resource and constraint in the organization of subjective experience. Within this methodological domain, this study makes use of the method of structural self-assessment so as to illumine the patterned ways in which I tend to enact my experience of Holding Loving Space as well as my approach to this research study as a whole. In other words, the question to be explored using structural self-assessment asks: how do the epistemological constraints and potentials of my awareness affect my enactment and research of the phenomenon of Holding Loving Space?
Having articulated the broad methodologies and methods utilized in this first-person section of the study, let us now turn to the design of my phenomenological research methods, followed by the data analysis and discussion. Upon completing the phenomenology section, I will engage a corresponding exposition of the method, data, and discussion with regard to my structural self-assessment.
Phenomenological Methods
Research Design
The direct experiential approach to my individual subjectivity brought forth through phenomenological inquiry is particularly well suited to the study of Holding Loving Space, since the phenomenon itself is also an individual interior form of research/practice. The overarching design procedure or method I used to illumine and disclose aspects of my subjective experience of Holding Loving Space (including my somatic and energetic sensations, emotions, thoughts, and spiritual experiences) and carry out the phenomenological research consisted of a reconstructive self-inquiry. This design incorporated elements of the methods of autobiographical description, systematic introspection, and reflective inquiry.
The autobiographical description aspect of the reconstructive self-inquiry sought to explore my past connection to Holding Loving Space, including my informal research/practice throughout the course of the four years that I have been a practitioner of Psychosophy and Holding Loving Space meditation. In order to collect the data for this aspect, I drew on material from my personal process journals and essays throughout this time. More specifically, I gathered from my home and storage containers and read through my Psychosophy meditation and personal process journals from January 2004 to September 2007.
The systematic introspection element was designed to explore my unfolding experience of Holding Loving Space and was engaged via a structured regime of sitting meditation and subsequent descriptive documentation of the experiential data in my meditation journal, beginning around the inception of this research project, in October, 2007, and coming to completion in December, 2007. More specifically, I practiced Holding Loving Space everyday for 30 to 60 minutes (typically between 6:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on my sitting cushion in a meditation corner in my home in Sebastopol, California). This three-month phase of formal introspection was more systematic relative to my prior informal research/practice and journaling vis-à-vis Holding Loving Space, since it included a general practice of bracketing my assumptions and natural attitude as well as an expressly structured and methodical approach to research/practice and documentation.
The reflective inquiry element was intended to provide an open space for the exploration and reconsideration of my experience and connection with Holding Loving Space. In service of this aim, I engaged four structured inquiry sessions between October and December 2007, each for approximately two hours, as well as sporadic unstructured reflections, both of which were documented in my process/meditation journal. Upon completion of the data collection via each of these injunctive elements, I highlighted all the passages in my journals that pertained to the research question and flagged them with post-its.
Analysis of the raw data was carried out through an approach to coding that falls outside of the general procedural norms and “hermeneutic rules” of the Husserlian philosophical tradition of phenomenology. As such, the method I have employed coded for themes from a raw data pool that itself consisted of both lower-order immediate or “apodictic” experience as well as higher-order reflections or theoretical explanations; therefore, the themes themselves mirror the data in that they are, in part, evaluative. Having articulated my phenomenological research design, let me now present the data.
Phenomenological Data
Because I am sharing about my own phenomenological experience in relation to Psychosophy and Holding Loving Space, it is relevant to more specifically disclose the nature of my connection to Psychosophy so as to provide a deeper context from which you can interpret and understand the data. In addition to my personal Psychosophy practice and regular session work as a client of Psychosophy’s founder, Scott Hamilton, I have begun to work with private clients after undergoing a three-year Psychosophy Consultant’s Training. Furthermore, I participate in numerous projects as a member of the emerging Psychosophy core group.
Being relatively ensconced in the milieu of Psychosophy through these multiple contexts, most of which involve significant education in Psychosophy’s model of human structure and development, my experience has been deeply infused by the energetic gestalt and philosophy of Psychosophy. Therefore, the below phenomenological exposition of my Psychosophically informed experience necessarily draws on and presents numerous terms, concepts, philosophical propositions, and techniques distinctive to Psychosophy. This research study marks the first publicly available written delineation of these elements of Psychosophy and therefore constitutes the inaugural publication of aspects of a new school of psychology, growth, and transformation. As such, key terms and concepts will be referenced via endnotes to their origins in the unpublished manuscripts of Hamilton.
Turning to my analysis of the phenomenological data, I have identified seven key themes in relation to my experience of, and personal connection to, Holding Loving Space. The themes are as follows:
1) from identification with a persona of success to recognition of repression and inner conflict; 2) relaxation and opening of defensive boundaries, and beginning psychodynamic healing; 3) distinguishing, connecting with, and disembedding from subconscious parts/subpersonalities; 4) embodied connection with the superconscious vision; 5) agapic alchemy towards essential translation; 6) philosophical dialogue leading to co-creative synergy with subconscious parts; 7) simultaneous awareness and interweaving of gross, subtle, and causal bodies. I will present these themes within a three-fold organizational structure that corresponds broadly to the progression of instruction I was given, which I have framed as three distinct holarchical levels of Holding Loving Space. In other words, Holding Loving Space can be practiced at three different levels and I found various themes were more associated with one of the three levels. As such, core features of each level of practice will be expounded sequentially before presenting the data themes disclosing key aspects of my experience as a practitioner within each respective level. Let me now unpack each of these, drawing on exemplary quotations from the data gathered in my journals and essays, so as to offer you, the reader, a glimpse into my idiosyncratic inner world of experience as a practitioner of Holding Loving Space meditation.
Data—Level 1: The Conscious Self Holding Unconditional Presence and Acceptance
The first data theme—from identification with a persona of success to recognition of repression and inner conflict—encompassed a pool of data highlighting the process in my early twenties of becoming increasingly aware of my repressive tendencies, which seemed to function largely in an attempt to hide from my awareness a painfully charged feeling of chaotically tangled inner conflict and confusion that lurked beneath the surface. As I reflected in my journal: Throughout my college years, prior to becoming involved with Psychosophy, I saw myself as a successful and naturally exuberant person. I felt relatively accomplished in the academic sphere, as a young community leader and eco-activist, as an athlete and outdoorsman, and as a musician. I remember feeling that I had an amazing girlfriend, great relationships with my family, and a wonderful circle of friends. I even practiced meditation and considered myself to have a rich spiritual life. I had pretty much convinced myself that my life could not be much better and that everything was “golden.”
However, as my college years moved towards a close the shiny veneer that I took myself to be began to crack, and painful memories and emotions that I had learned to keep just below the surface began to break through. It started to become inescapably apparent that the story of my persona was in part an elaborate defense strategy to shield against any internal experience that contradicted the brilliantly crafted façade of positivity. As I recalled a symptomatic example of my underlying pain and inner conflict in my journal, I can remember sitting in class in my junior year of college and inexplicably and uncontrollably breaking down and bursting into tears, overwhelmed with a feeling that my whole life felt hollow—that on some level I could no longer hide from myself the feeling that I was full of shit.
In sharing this vulnerable experience with friends I was encouraged to completely discount it and remember my “incredible” outer life, which reinforced the seductive tendency to reengage my defense strategy. But various external stressors, such as a messy break-up, a death in the family, and a post-college “quarter-life crisis” of confusion about what to do with my life eventually converged to create a context in which I was essentially forced to face my painful, amorphous feelings of internal alienation, fragmentation, and contradiction. My exhausted defenses, including repression, suppression, rationalization, and intellectualization, could no longer muster the massive energy it took to both hold my emotions at bay and project a jubilant persona of success.
Despite a relatively well cultivated cognitive capacity to take multiple systems perspectives engendered through studying Wilber and Chaos/Complexity Theory in the context of my undergraduate major in Culture, Ecology, & Consciousness, I nevertheless began to feel helplessly trapped in this high-voltage war-zone within my own being, and it was nearly overwhelming me. As I wrote in my journal,
“I began to experience an increasingly intense feeling of alienation—a feeling of fragmentation within my own being.” Symbolic of this volatile dynamic of inner conflict, I experienced an “intense and unpleasant” recurrent dream in which I found myself in the midst of an antiquated battle field, reminiscent of the American civil war, in which countless cannon balls flew from every direction, and there was nowhere for me to run. My typically abundant sense of creativity “felt dead, my vital energy and motivation declined, and I experienced several other psychosomatic symptoms.” Everything I tried, and particularly the highly ascending meditation technique I had been practicing for several years seemed only to make matters worse.
It was becoming undeniably obvious to me that I had come to a major impasse in my life wherein I could no longer suppress what was happening inside me: It slowly became clear to me that I needed to face this, whatever it was, head on…[that] it was time I listen. Feeling unclear as to how I should best proceed on my own, I decided to seek…support and guidance in my process.
Soon thereafter, in the dark depths of this process of waking up to my painfully repressed inner conflict, Psychosophy and its practice of Holding Loving Space came into my life, just over four years ago. This was the beginning of a powerful cycle—simultaneously painful and joyous—of starting to authentically turn towards and engage the depths of my own being via a daily practice of Holding Loving Space.
No longer able to completely repress my sense of confusion, alienation, and fragmentation, I found myself lost in the chaos, unable to separate myself from it, or recognize the nature of my multiplicity of inner conflicts. I was in limbo, as I had lost my prior identification as (the persona of success or “golden boy”) but had not yet gained a new integrated center from which to guide my inner and outer lives. Only later, via the practice of Holding Loving Space, did my conscious self slowly begin to emerge from the morass of inner struggle, becoming able to perceive the specific dynamics of my inner psyche.
Before exploring the next theme, I will offer a brief synopsis of Holding Loving Space as I was originally instructed to practice it. The first level of Holding Loving Space practice consists, in its most basic form, of the key elements of positioning in the conscious self, unconditional presence and unconditional acceptance. Hamilton describes the basic method as follows (as the originator of this practice it is worth quoting him at length): Before teaching Holding Loving Space, it is essential for the consultant to first establish a strong field of loving space for the client, so that as the client is learning to generate their own field, they can draw upon and morphically resonate with, the mature field being held by the consultant. After opening such a field for the client and providing some contextual background, the initial stage of Holding Loving Space generally begins with awareness of breath, breathing deeply, slowly, and evenly into the belly and chest, relaxing the body, learning to position within the conscious self, and opening up a field of unconditional presence and acceptance towards all experiences and subconscious parts as they arise from moment to moment. Part of the acceptance is an appreciation that all one notices is a movement by some part that is seeking to feel better. While the conscious self’s focus remains grounded in somatic and energetic sensations, one is also present to and accepting of emotions, thoughts, images and spiritual experiences to whatever extent they naturally arise. Presence steadily pervades all of oneself, while acceptance allows all that is revealed to safely be and move however it naturally does. At this stage, there is no attempt to change, heal, or grow anything, yet all of these begin to unfold spontaneously via the quality of space one is holding.
A data theme that corresponds to my experience in the first level practice of Holding Loving Space is the relaxation and opening of defensive boundaries and beginning psychodynamic healing. As I initiated an intensive daily practice of Holding Loving Space, I entered into a process of learning to land in myself, sit with what was actually going on inside me beneath the surface, and thereby begin to uncover, explore, and heal my nebulous and confusing sense of inner conflict and fragmentation.
I experienced the first level of Holding Loving Space, with its emphasis on breathing into the belly, noticing the sensations, and beginning to hold a field of unconditional presence and acceptance—without turning away from it or trying to fix or change it in any way—to engender a feeling of deep safety that allowed more of me to come forth. To the extent that I was able to authentically hold this space, I often experienced, in direct proportion, a sense of somatic-energetic release and relaxation, which created an opening to repressed layers of experience. I described my felt experience of this intrapsychic opening in my meditation journal:
As I open a field of loving space, all parts of me begin to feel held in a sphere of living, pulsating presence that extends beyond the boundary of my [physical] body. As I feel my embrace and total acceptance deepen, I notice a quality of opening, expanding, and relaxing all throughout my body and being—shoulders drop, my jaw softens, a sense of subtle holding of tension lets go. A chaotic world of tangled emotions—a dynamic amalgam of anxiety, rage, anger, hurt, grief tied to a conflicting web of impulses and explosively charged sensations—erupts in my awareness. I feel burning liquid fire, spewing and pulsating in my belly. Now holding space also for an impulse to pull back from the experience, this intense hotness begins to burn through the tight sensations of blockage, pockets of stagnation and drudge, bringing movement and circulation. I feel the heat draw parts of me into an energetic communion—steadily unraveling the knotted sensations of contracted charge.
As portrayed above, one of the fundamental qualities of my experience at the first level of Holding Loving Space was a sense of dissolving tension in my body and subsequent opening to the complex and painful feelings that lurked beneath, and which quickly surfaced upon relaxation. It is crucial to emphasize that this relaxation of my defenses in my early cycle of practicing Holding Loving Space opened me, not to some peacefully subdued state but to a primal underworld of intensely difficult emotions and impulses—thereby allowing me to really face the dynamics underlying the feeling of inner conflict that I had invested so much energy in shielding myself from.
Indeed, as one becomes aware of any form of pain, an aspect of level one Holding Loving Space is to “place all of your consciousness right in the heart of the greatest pain” or other ego-dystonic experience, breathing into it, and becoming unconditionally present and accepting of those sensations from moment-to-moment. While the unique synthesis of qualities embodied in Holding Loving Space feels deeply supportive of my staying with these experiences, I feel that it nonetheless requires real courage and perseverance to hold space for the sometimes frantically pushing impulse to run away from the pain by producing distractions, pulling up in the higher centers, or even attempting to stop the practice altogether.
After many such experiences, I have come to learn that if I can truly be unconditionally accepting (which is not always easy), and stay present with my painful experiences, then a whole new quality of healing often emerges. In my meditation journal I described one of these vivid healing experiences:
I am deep in this space of hurt, heartbreak, sadness, grief, pain, [oscillating into] anger, and rage—which feels like an intense heat energy in my belly, and most of all, an incredibly intense burning sensation in my heart center. As I open to the experience deeply, I feel some of the most charged and intense emotions I have ever contacted fully, and yet somewhat paradoxically…as I open to the pain fully, it no longer feels as “painful”—there is a profound sense of healing, of growing to a greater wholeness, of coming home—a deep yet subtle and delicate sense of joy begins to emerge as I enter more deeply into my “dark” emotions. It is this beautiful feeling of coming back to life— this tremendous sense of aliveness and gratitude and love simultaneously with the pain.
This passage conveys somewhat of an exemplar of my initial experience in beginning to practice the first level of Holding Loving Space: a relaxation and opening of my defensive boundaries and subsequent deep contact with a complex and muddled world of charged experience. Through the practice of being open to and unconditionally present and accepting with my experience, I was able to begin to empathically feel, inhabit, and integrate these split-off energies into the stream of my being.
The next theme—distinguishing, connecting with, and disembedding from subconscious parts/subpersonalities—points to a cycle of my practice of the first level of Holding Loving Space in which my feeling of an amorphous quality of inner fragmentation, conflict, and confusion began to clarify into a more differentiated understanding of the specific intrapsychic dynamics converging to produce this feeling.
Distinguishing various discrete subconscious parts of me was the first movement in this process, which was facilitated in large part by the Psychosophy map of the psyche. The Psychosophy map was presented to me not as some kind of pre-given truth-perspective but as a working injunction or hypothesis with which I was invited to experiment, in order to personally verify or refute aspects of it, based on my own direct experience. As I used the Psychosophy map to explore the territory of my own psyche, I began to connect various patterns of sensation, impulse, emotion, “voices,” and images to it and therefore brought forth a clearer experiential understanding of some of the basic contours of my inner mindscape. The most salient of these, during this phase of my practice, was a portion of Psychosophy’s developmental model of subconscious parts. According to this model, all people have subconscious parts corresponding to all the ages or phases of the history of their life up to the present moment. By practicing Holding Loving Space, guided by the Psychosophy map, I was able to clearly distinguish many of the subconscious parts inside me that I had been unconsciously identified with, and living from, much of the time.
Distinguishing my basic subconscious parts was, however, just the beginning of a process of beginning to connect with these living beings, enter into authentic and loving relationship, and cultivate greater insight and understanding of them and their world. As I wrote in my journal, when practicing Holding Loving Space for various discrete subconscious parts:
I experience...my field of loving space functioning as a profound invitation from my parts to come forth to connect and enter into communion with my conscious self in powerful and new ways. The energetic note of the field of loving space evokes a quality of contact with these parts wherein they feel a safety to reveal themselves much more nakedly and fully. Holding Loving Space itself feels like a gesture of deep honoring and embracing of each and every part as it is; allowing them to be seen and their voices heard. Only to the extent that parts are known and understood can they become true co-creative teammates.
As this passage suggests, in practicing Holding Loving Space for my subconscious parts, I began a process of getting to know them by inviting them to express themselves within the safe container of Holding Loving Space, and deeply listening to them. As such, I began to discern the idiosyncratic patterns of how these parts were showing up within me, cultivating understanding of their perspectives, schemas, core needs, and strategies for meeting those needs, to name some. For example, I reflected that
[As I held loving space] I noticed a childlike part that sought to fill a emotional void by seeking a woman with which to fuse emotionally, so as to fulfill needs for security and nurturance. This was immediately felt as recurrent impulses and thoughts about connecting with attractive women (resonant with my Anima-Freyja projection), and was accompanied by a fluttery sensation of emotional longing and excitement. As I continued to hold space for him, I also became aware that the void contained a painful reservoir of grief and sadness that were often avoided by focusing outward in search of a nurturing woman or other transitional objects.
As this quote conveys through the example of my child part, Holding Loving Space has supported me to connect with my subconscious parts as immediate and distinct beings connected to particular phases of my history and development, while likewise cultivating understanding of their patterned dynamics, such as underlying needs and strategies.
This level of understanding of my subconscious parts, supported by my practice of unconditional presence and acceptance, allowed me to decipher and hold space for the specific nature of the dynamics of conflict between them, which I experienced to be largely a result of their multiple contradictory perspective-strategies for meeting core needs. For example, in a journal entry I described my emerging awareness of a specific inner conflict present between my subconscious parts:
[By Holding Loving Space] I became aware of warrior parts of me, from which I felt an intense drive to fulfill raw hedonistic desires and maintain a sense of freedom and power. This showed up as an urge to do “something extraordinary,” intense, or daring…I acted out this impulse by spending a summer in the mountains of Argentina seeking to embody the archetype of the rock star skier. At the same time, however, there were parts of me that felt a calling to be of service and take greater action for the planet. These parts lobbied for me to focus more deeply on my sustainability work, a perspective deeply in conflict with the adventuring, thrill seeking agenda of my warrior parts.
As illustrated above, Holding Loving Space supported the muddy waters of my conflict ridden psyche to settle and clarify, allowing me to understand the discrete subconscious parts and contradictory strategies underlying my sense of inner turmoil. In addition to the above conflict between my warrior parts and my ecologically sensitive parts, practicing Holding Loving Space helped me distinguish, connect with, and more deeply understand a whole gamut of other parts and their often incongruent impulses, such as parts driven for academic achievement and success, parts that wanted to please my parents in various ways and be seen as a “good” boy, and the above mentioned child parts seeking nurturance and security, to name a few. By Holding Loving Space I was able to differentiate the various stakeholders and specific dynamics underlying my sense of inner fragmentation and thereby begin to take a new and empowering perspective on the foggy feeling of inner conflict I had previously been embedded in.
By Holding Loving Space and establishing the position of the conscious self holding unconditional presence and acceptance for my subconscious parts, I was simultaneously distinguishing and disembedding from them, and becoming ever more aware of who it was that was holding the space. As I reflected through daily practice,
I began to experience myself more and more as the space holder, taking perspective on the multitude of parts and their vast array of emotions, impulses, sensations, and other experiences. Gradually, as Holding Loving Space exercised this capacity of relating to rather than being embedded in my intrapsychic parts (i.e., I am Holding Loving Space for parts of myself), I began to experience a profound sense of liberation as my locus of identity started to take root in a space that is outside of, yet envelops and embraces, all my subconscious parts and their conflicts.
Increasingly, as this quote insinuates, I began to experience a deep sense of opening and reconfiguration of my life as I moved towards assuming the mantel of the co-creative facilitator of my subconscious parts, residing outside of, yet engaged with, my subconscious parts and their conflicting impulses. In assuming this stance, along with the cultivation of loving relationship and understanding with subconscious parts, my practice at this first level of Holding Loving Space laid the foundation for a deeper level of growth—a growth beyond the initial uncovering and healing of dysfunctional parts and their acute points of conflict. It is this deeper level of growth that will be explored in level two below.
Data—Level 2: Communion with the Superconscious
The second level of Holding Loving Space holarchically envelops the basic elements of the first level of the practice—positioning in the conscious self, unconditional presence, and unconditional acceptance—while including the additional key element of communion with the superconscious. The following is a concise description by Hamilton of the foundational structure of the second level of Holding Loving Space:
As the practitioner builds the multiple requisite capacities, he or she is guided to connect with the superconscious and become aware of the pre-existing field of loving, purposeful space that the superconscious is already always holding for the conscious and subconscious. As this is perceived ever more deeply over time, the practitioner opens to allow the formation of a resonance bridge between the fields of loving space being held by the conscious and superconscious selves. Essential to this process is the radiation of the consultant’s own living conscious-to-superconscious bridge, thereby helping to further ignite the client’s direct link. Via the client’s growing communion, the unconditional love, compassion, wisdom, empowerment, and inspiration of the superconscious infuses the conscious self’s field of presence and acceptance, profoundly enriching and deepening it to further support all the bodies, and the whole subconscious sphere. In synergy with this core energetic infusion, the consultant also facilitates an inquiry based philosophical dialogue between all three spheres, supporting the subconscious to cultivate a profound transfiguration of itself based on greater truth realization.
Beginning to engage this second level of Holding Loving Space, I experienced a threshold crossing of sorts in which the practice entered into a profoundly powerful phase wherein emergent possibilities for evolution and synthesis—beyond the healing of acute inner conflict—were brought forth. At this level, it is my experience that even relatively healthy subconscious parts that simply have yet to be integrated as aspects of a more deeply unified self-system can begin to be synthesized, and a higher level of co-creative alliance enacted. A data theme that corresponds closely to this level of my practice is that of embodied connection with the superconscious vision. Allow me to unpack this.
By connecting with the superconscious what is known in Psychosophy as the superconscious vision can be brought forth and progressively embodied. My practice of Holding Loving Space has awakened me to a superconscious force from which an electrically charged Life energy, an ineffable Light of creative intelligence, and a boundlessly radiant Love unwaveringly streams and magnetically guides me to joyously serve All. In my meditation journal, I attempted to describe this:
I experience the superconscious force of my soul body as a spherical magnetic field of attraction, like a golden sun, “located” spatially above me that descends into my head (felt as expanding sensation of pressure or magnetic charge) and often cascades downward to envelop my entire body, filling me with a warm and blissful quality of joy. I experience this energetic force to be the embodiment of an illumined consciousness that is intrinsically identified with the entire Kosmos and therefore automatically is called to manifest a Love for all beings in whatever way is truly of the greatest possible service to the One Life. The superconscious is plugged into a vast transrational meta-perspective and identity that not only fuels an intense Kosmocentric Love and awakens a deeply energized devotion to service, but also provides a source of immense wisdom and guidance about the core patterns around which one’s unique purpose and gift to the world are to be co-creatively brought forth in synergy with all levels of one’s being. In my experience, the superconscious vision therefore is a dynamic blueprint or force that exerts a magnetic pull or probabilistic ordering on the personality towards an evolutionary trajectory that will be of the greatest possible service to all beings.
This force of calling to co-creatively bring forth a life of the greatest service, as described in the above passage, is a key aspect of what is meant by the superconscious vision. The superconscious vision is the central organizing principle around which an evolutionary process of transcending and transfiguring intrapsychic polarizations, while moving towards co-creative alignment, is engaged. This superconscious vision serves as a dynamic blueprint, as mentioned above, from which polarities can be synthesized and alchemized and a more mutually enhancing way of being can be cocreated. As Hamilton states, “rather than being a fixed crystallization, this vision is itself adaptable and responsive to the ongoing real world feedback of the conscious and subconscious, as they evolve into ever-greater alignment and contact with it.”
As discussed in the following two themes, this process consists of two distinct, yet interrelated and mutually reinforcing aspects: one has to do with an energetic transfiguration of the subconscious parts, and alignment with the superconscious vision; the other involves a philosophical alignment with the superconscious vision through transformational dialogue with subconscious parts. These two aspects of my experience of the second level of Holding Loving Space will be addressed in the next two themes, respectively.
The next theme—agapic alchemy towards essential translation—encompasses the data connected to my experience of the process of energetic alignment and contact with the living vision of the superconscious, leading to transfiguration. As I described this in a reflection:
In incorporating a communion with the superconscious into my practice, I begin to experience an alchemical process in which it feels like my superconscious is reaching down to touch and embrace my subconscious parts, beginning to open and transfigure their isolation into an illumined integration as aspects of a unified whole. This alchemical transfiguration process, in my experience, seems to be burning away blockages within each of my parts that previously obstructed the higher-level wholeness of the superconscious light, thereby allowing it to shine through. Indeed, a key ingredient in initiating this process is to “see” the essential light of that deeper whole within the part, thereby enacting the superconscious essence latent within each.
This aspect of level two Holding Loving Space practice is known in Psychosophy as holding space for the inner essence or Perfection of a part. In my experience, this element of the practice psychoactively awakens or brings to light that aspect of my subconscious parts that are the expression of the superconscious on that level. As I reflected in my journal, “Holding space for the essential Perfection of a part is a massively potent dimension of the practice that co-enacts the possibility of that Perfection mirroring itself in form—evolving toward the manifestation of itself as an embodied Perfection.” The first step towards such enactment is to release any presuppositions, becoming curious and excited about how this essential glory might manifest its essence in the next moment. This supports the part to gradually contact the dimension of itself that is already linked to the superconscious, eventually opening a harmonic resonance bridge for the higher octave force and vision of the superconscious to descend into it and co-creatively express through it.
As I wrote in my journal, I experience connecting with the superconscious and Holding Loving Space for the inner essence of a part to establish an experiential “light bridge” of descending energy that passes through and infuses all of my lower bodies and the parts that “live” within them. By connecting this force with my subconscious, I experience what feels like a self-organizing process in which the superconscious is actively embracing, enveloping, and alchemically integrating the lower-level aspects of its own being. By emphasizing the soul [superconscious], I experience an acceleration of this alchemical process wherein parts that express the contradictory strategies and polarizations of the transitional worldview associated with a stage of development my conscious self passed through at an earlier time, can begin to let go of their exclusive attachment to those transitional elements and can start to open to a new synergistic way of seeing and being.
Through connecting with a subconscious part, holding space for it, and linking it to the superconscious, that part can itself begin to be transfigured to express the qualities of the superconscious on that level—what I call essential translation. The following passage offers an example of a particularly vivid experience, during a Holding Loving Space session, of this agapic alchemy in relation to my aforementioned warrior part:
I go inward to find a warm pulsating sensation radiating out from my solar plexus and feel a magnetic spinning sensation encapsulating my body. I see an image of my warrior part with a huge stick in his hand lost in a hypervigilant spinning, fueled by a nervously enraged instinctual energy. I feel a sense of ambition and the fear of not being seen in him. As I hold space for this experience, focusing my breath on my solar plexus, the spinning begins to subside, and I feel this current of light energy descend through the center of my body, connecting and synthesizing with the radiant shining heat in my heart, the vital surging heat in my solar plexus, dropping all the way down to my perineum. As I sit in this column of energy, I begin to feel an intense fiery purpose quality come forth from within. As I hold space for my warrior in my solar plexus, I begin to feel him plug in to this potent life energy…and I feel this heavy quality of rootedness begin to emerge. My warrior part is now holding his stick vertically and it feels like gravity is grounding it in the earth. I feel my energy drop and center. My warrior stands poised, plugged into the purpose energy streaming forth from my soul [superconscious]. I feel this relaxed quality of power—of a latent strength, vitality, passion, inspiration, and intensity in service of my purpose.
As we can see above, the hypervigilant and ambitious expression of my warrior part was indicative of his dissociated expression, prior to connecting with the superconscious in Holding Loving Space. However, through his communion with the superconscious, a highly ordered alchemical process spontaneously emerged. It is as if the higher order field of the superconscious reached down to embrace my warrior, beginning to transmute his polarizations and rigidifications, and bringing forth his inner essence. The warrior of fearful ambition is transmuted into the warrior of groundedness and passionate service.
Beyond the above example relating to my warrior part, it feels as though through their contact with its alchemical force in Holding Loving Space, my parts on all levels are gradually being transmuted into “organs” in the body of the superconscious or soul. The language of non-linear dynamics seems to aptly fit with my lived experience of this: the superconscious and its vision thus enacts as a higher-level strange attractor whose supervening influence functions to co-creatively self-organize the evolutionary trajectory of all lower level parts. I experience the practice of Holding Loving Space to create a context in which many of my subconscious parts, through their contact with my superconscious, are inspired, through their natural motivation for better states of consciousness, to cocreatively manifest the superconscious vision. Of course, this is a gradual process that moves through myriad layers, and one in which there are many parts of me that have yet to partake.
Paralleling and in positive feedback with the above alchemical process of alignment with the agapic force of the superconscious, another important element of my experience with level two Holding Loving Space relates to the process of supporting alignment via hermeneutic inquiry, as disclosed by the following theme: philosophical dialogue toward co-creative synergy with subconscious parts. As potent as I experience the above energetic alchemy to be, it is not a panacea; without the “dialogical-philosophical” element of level two Holding Loving Space, it is slower and less effective in terms of developing an intrapsychic ecology of co-creative synergy. This process builds on the healthy and loving relationship with my subconscious parts cultivated through level one Holding Loving Space such that I could begin to facilitate a shared inquiry and dialogue exploring new and more mutually beneficial ways to create better states of consciousness and address common needs. As I reflected on this process:
In my experience, the cultivation of co-creative synergy with my parts is engendered by inhabiting the conscious self and working in alignment with the superconscious and its vision, translating it such that it resonates for them, and inviting, inspiring, and empowering them to enter into a philosophical dialogue process in which incongruence and polarization can be overcome in mutually empowering ways. While I, as the conscious self, largely inhabit the role of the facilitator in this process and attempt to create a context in which my subconscious parts can participate in the superconscious vision in ways that appeal to their natural motivations, it is important to emphasize that this process is predicated on the voluntary and collaborative participation of each part and cannot be imposed or forced.
As illustrated in this passage, this shared dialogical inquiry is voluntary, cocreative, and seeks to integrate polarities by enacting mutually empowering perspectives and practices, or what I call the synergistic resonance points at the nexus of the sub- and superconscious.
One basic hermeneutic approach towards such mutual understanding and mutually empowering action between developmentally diverse parts essentially consists of the conscious self asking questions, deeply listening, and sharing invitations, both individually and with multiple parts together. Specifically, this approach includes the exploration of the assumptions underlying various apparent contradictions between parts. In this way, the partiality or inefficacy of various perspectives is illumined, and more encompassing philosophical understandings that allow for the enactment of new synergistic possibilities can be offered. In my experience, as was underscored in my work as a Psychosophy consulting client, this process only works if I consistently transmit an energy of authentic non-attachment, deep respect, and loving leadership throughout my dialogic engagement with my parts. As a result of these qualities, my parts opened to exploring and receiving deeper philosophical truth-perspectives from which better strategies for meeting shared needs can be evolved. In this way, I created conditions in which my less expansive parts could, of their own accord, choose to work in greater alliance with more complex ones, such that multiple aspects of myself were enriched in a more integrated flow of being and moving. As a simplified example of my experience with this philosophical dialogue from my journal, to again highlight my warrior part, one way that I have worked with this dialogical process in as follows:
In those moments when my warrior part is saying “give me instant gratification” and wanting to express in a more independent way, [I hold]…space for him and instead of saying no to the strategy he is wanting to pursue, I invite and inspire him to say yes to the greater joy that comes from moving in alignment with the superconscious purpose… I meet him on his own terms, saying “I really get that you want joy from this, and I want you to have joy, and I want you to have the most joy possible, and I invite you to consider the joy that is possible in moving with the purpose now.” I then take action in this moment. It is not an abstract invitation. I cocreate with that part, and then that part feels the joy coming forth with that action. And the proof is in the pudding for that part. “Does it really work? Is it more joyous?” Subconscious parts have a very sensitive bullshit meter, so it has to really work.
As I have experienced my warrior progressively deepen his experiential realization of the principle implied through the above dialogic process—that the way to actually produce the greatest joy is not to focus on joy but to focus on being of the greatest service and growing in the ways that support that—I increasingly experience him to be enrolled and inspired to collaboratively express the superconscious vision in the world. To the extent that he is on board, I experience him as a powerful source of passion and raw life energy driving me to assert and deliver that vision in the world.
This example with my warrior is but one example of a multifaceted unfoldment that included parts functioning across multiple developmental levels. As I supported my subconscious parts through the evolutionary journey of Holding Loving Space (including positioning as the conscious self, unconditional presence and acceptance, superconscious communion, and philosophical dialogue), multiple parts of me that previously appeared locked into dynamics of conflict began to find their natural right relationship within the ecology of my being. As this process has deepened over time, my parts have more and more synergistically integrated into a common field of resonance, supporting an emergent expression of service in the world. As shown in the following journal entry, these results of Holding Loving Space consummated through the manifestation of my own Psychosophy Consulting Practice:
The real starting point for my practice was connecting with my superconscious purpose, and sensing my unique role in the big picture of how the matrix of eco-social systems are fitting together at this moment in the planetary unfoldment. After years of subconscious integration work, in one particularly deep sitting, I passionately inquired “How can I best serve? What is my soul inspired gift to the world?”…and settled into a silent receptivity to my superconscious—an inner knowing and energetic impulse coursed through me, and I felt new cocreative alignments emerge in my being. In my core, I had decided: I can do this, I am going to do it, and it is going to be a success. I can see now that there was an alignment between my child part’s creativity, my structure-oriented part’s organization, my warrior’s passionate drive, and my strategic service part to do everything necessary to launch a new serviceful business. While at times it took an assertion of will, mostly I didn’t have to force myself. Inspired by my superconscious vision, my passion, creativity, and strategic orchestration naturally infused me with the discipline and drive to accomplish. Additionally, my more receptive side also supported me when challenges arose by helping me open to my coworkers’ inspiration and constructive feedback.
As this passage suggests, level two Holding Loving Space has supported me to develop certain necessary capacities for beginning to transfigure and synthesize many of the myriad subconscious parts that had previously distorted more profoundly my capacity to move from the living flow of my own superconscious stream. It appears that the field of level two Holding Loving Space is a convergence zone wherein the superconscious and subconscious spheres can meet via the conscious sphere, and begin to co-creatively express in service to the world. As such, Holding Loving Space feels like it has engendered in me a sense that my subconscious parts are much more “on board” and aligned with the superconscious vision, and that therefore I have developed a greater capacity and centeredness from which to address the world situation. Of course, this is an ongoing process in which the light of my awareness is constantly penetrating deeper and deeper, illuminating the many parts of me that are not yet on board and therefore still diminishing my capacity to serve. This level two process of cultivating cocreative alignment and synergy between parts at all levels of the subconscious can be further deepened by engaging from the profound spaciousness brought forth via level three.
Data—Level 3: Self-no-self and Pure Consciousness
The third level of Holding Loving Space underscores the elements of Self-no-self and Pure Consciousness, which Hamilton summarizes as follows:
This level involves further pulling back from the personality construct and the whole of vibrational reality into Pure Consciousness and Absolute Self-no-self. From this Archimedean point, and its pervasive awareness, the practitioner slowly learns to look both at and through conscious, subconscious and superconscious windows first sequentially, and later simultaneously. Steadily, these three are experienced as one unbreakable continuum. It is only via such simultaneously objective and subjective views of all three spheres that Self-no-self and Pure Consciousness gather the necessary depth of knowledge from all levels to synergize and unite with them into a single, stream of joyous, co-creative service to the One Life. As all three spheres Hold Loving Space for all three spheres at once, an organic pathway opens to consciousness and vibrational synergy and synthesis throughout all levels.
The theme of simultaneous awareness and interweaving of gross, subtle, and causal bodies emerged as a key theme in relation to this level, and one that encompassed a significant portion of the data. Through the multiple cycles of practice and reflection, I noted a strong experiential connection between the basic stance of the conscious self’s spacious awareness, unconditional presence, and unconditional acceptance at the foundation of Holding Loving Space, and what in Integral Theory is known as the causal. This correspondence is even stronger in this third level, wherein the causal can be seen as very roughly corresponding to a fusion of what Hamilton calls Self-no-self and Pure Consciousness.
The causal is the ground position or “space” from which the gross and subtle are held in awareness throughout the practice. As such, the third level of Holding Loving Space is founded on the phenomenological insight that Pure Consciousness is the infinite spaciousness or context in which vibrational phenomena arise and therefore can encompass and hold anything. It is a field of awareness that pervades every aspect of vibrational existence (including all the energy-bodies), and therefore sees and feels the tingling of every nuance and facet of the relative/existential world. By adopting this stance towards my gross and subtle bodies, the causal body pervades them, as my awareness engages and weaves energetic threads between them. Illustrating my felt understanding of this in a reflection session from November 2007, I wrote the following:
My enactment of [level three] Holding Loving Space meditation often begins simply by using the breath to ground in the gross-physical body, noticing the somatic sensations as they dance within me, moment-to-moment. This tends to have a centering effect, and organically seems to widen my awareness to include the lowest of the subtle bodies—the etheric (prana or chi) body. From there, I continue widening my awareness to encompass my emotional body, mental body, and any experience in the higher superconscious bodies. Aware of these bodies and aspects of my experience, I notice that whatever is emerging in my awareness is simply a form object, and therefore that I (the subject) am not identical with that object. Assuming the witnessing stance of Self-no-self’s Pure Consciousness engages the causal body and grounds me in a place of true safety to fully connect with any part of me. Therefore, the practice, in contrast to many of the causal practices I am aware of, is not to simply remain detached in the transcendental expanse of the witness but to fully disidentify from the temporarily arising forms on the way toward relating to those forms such that they can then be deeply engaged, embraced, and fully experienced. The extent to which the vibrational form is actually felt, pervaded, and embraced (opposed to [merely] disidentified from, judged as illusory, an ontological contraction, etc.) is the extent to which the form actually evolves.
As the above passage indicates, my experience is that the full embrace and experiencing of whatever is arising in my gross and subtle bodies from the stance of the witness creates an interconnectivity of the three bodies that I experience to catalyze evolutionary movement. However, as emphasized above, the background philosophies of the bodies and their vibrations, through which the stance of Pure Consciousness is enacted, can have important implications for practice.
Therefore, in my experience, what gives Holding Loving Space its evolutionary power is much more than simply the cultivation of this configuration of awareness but also has to do with a complex network of subtle qualities that exist within the distinctive themenic field of Psychosophy. That is to say, my felt sense of this practice tells me that Holding Loving Space manifests emergent evolutionary qualities by enacting the gross, subtle, and causal through the “morphic groove” of Psychosophy’s unique themens. The bodies are thereby simultaneously brought forth and held within the magnetically charged themenic field of Psychosophy and pervaded by the field of Pure Consciousness, supporting a profound interlinking of all the bodies into a single energetic network, or synergy body. I have noticed that establishing such a sacred convergence of these discrete systems into a meta-system consistently galvanizes intense energetic movement both within and between my bodies. As I journaled about this experience, when I hold loving space for my bodies, I feel this warm (or sometimes burning hot) sensation of movement and energetic flow that feels healing—like it is actually changing, evolving, and transfiguring my vehicles. When I go deeply into this state, I feel totally held by the lighted wings of Grace—enveloped by an Agapic embrace—and with this always seems to come a delicate quality of joy.
As this quote highlights, the unique interpenetrating configuration of the gross, subtle, and causal brought forth through my practice of Holding Loving Space is associated with what I experience as an energetic movement that feels evolutionary, a warm healing sensation, a felt communion with a living agapic presence, and a sober quality of joy, as the three bodies are dynamically interwoven into a gestalt. Having disclosed the seventh and last data theme, let me now turn to the question of validity before discussing the data.
Regarding issues and categories of validity for phenomenological research, soundness is based largely on what the German philosopher and social theorist Jürgen Habermas calls “truthfulness.” Truthfulness, in this context, refers to one’s own capacity to nakedly and honestly disclose their interiors with integrity and even vulnerability. To carry this out as a researcher, it is crucial to engage a practice of critically reflexive inquiry so as to increase awareness of the conscious and unconscious ways in which censorship or selective filtration may be occurring. Of course, the validity of first-person research is grounded in the postmodern constructivist insight that awareness (and therefore reality) inherently has interpretive aspects and thus filtration cannot be avoided altogether.
However, such bias can be brought increasingly to awareness and disclosed as well as guided towards a more “objective” view of one’s own subjectivity through practices such as critical self-inquiry, psychodynamic shadow work, and epoché. I have sought to engage these aforementioned practices and have, in the process, become aware of various rationalizations and shadow dynamics that have affected my capacity to be fully truthful with my own experience. For example, at several points in the process, I became aware of parts of me that felt vulnerable at the thought of publicly sharing such intimate details about my growth process, and desired to either omit or moderate their darker aspects. However, I began to work with this by Holding Loving Space for the relevant parts and conveying the importance of openness and truthfulness for the further emergence of a vibrant phenomenological research community. I also modeled for them an attitude of neutrality and positive embrace toward my own unfolding psychodynamic story. With regard to my general assumption, mentioned in the introduction, that Holding Loving Space is growthful, I feel that I effectively practiced epoché, striving to be as receptive as possible to whatever the data actually revealed. While I don’t claim to have fully transcended these potential biases, I can honestly say that I have done my best to become aware of them and work with them in support of a more open and truthful phenomenological inquiry. With regard to the disclosure of the patterned ways in which my awareness, and therefore my interpretive filtration process, is structured, I will share this via the structural self-assessment section, following my discussion of the above phenomenological data.
Discussion
Reflecting on the a posteriori data, many of the emergent themes regarding my subjective experience and particular enactment of Holding Loving Space, seem to collectively paint a picture of a practice which, by connecting the “three spheres” of subconscious, conscious, and superconscious, appears to support a relatively balanced developmental movement towards a more complex and intrapsychically integrated self-identity. In order to demonstrate and specify this proposition, I will offer a succinct analysis of the phenomenological data themes vis-à-vis the developmental-structural literature. My goal in doing this is to evaluate the potential of Holding Loving Space to support transformation and intrapsychic integration in the self-identity line, as understood by the AQAL map of the psyche. Herein I will highlight correlations between the data themes and specific levels of self-identity with the understanding that it could also be fruitful to analyze ways in which they do not correlate. I invite you, the reader, to keep this in mind as you consider these parallels.
In theme one I described a shift from my identification with a more monolithic “jubilant persona of success” based on outer “accomplishment” and concomitant “repressive tendencies” to keep pain and contradiction at bay, to a more “fragmented” self, ridden by “confusion” and “alienation,” and subsequent turning inward to explore my “inner conflict,” via Holding Loving Space. Noting parallels between this data and the structural literature, Cook-Greuter states that at the Conscientious level (Orange altitude), one is “oriented toward action,” often having “positive self-regard based on their successes…[and] ability to be the master of their ships,” as well as a tendency for “suppression (bracketing out) of the negative pole and shadow side.” In contrast, the Individualist (Green altitude) “may become confused by internal contradictions…‘there is a struggle within myself, different voices competing for attention.’” Similarly, as the social scientist Bill Torbert highlights, the Individualist can tend to be subject to “troubled feelings of something unraveling or needing resolving.” Given these parallels, this theme is suggestive of an overall pattern of my transformational movement from the Conscientious into the Individualist stage (i.e., Orange to Green altitude)—supported, in part, by level one Holding Loving Space.
In themes two and three I disclosed level one Holding Loving Space’s support of my process of “uncovering, exploring, and beginning to heal” my “inner conflict,” on my way toward “distinguishing,” “deeply listening” to and “disembedding” from my “subconscious parts” and their “polarizations.” More specifically, these themes underscore Holding Loving Space’s power to develop my capacities for 1) unconditional presence and unconditional acceptance and 2) positioning in the conscious self.
Unconditional presence (i.e., the awareness of the conscious self enveloping and pervading one’s bodies) and unconditional acceptance (i.e., the deep honoring and embracing of what is) worked together in unique yet complementary ways to deepen my awareness of both my shadow elements (“re-own split-off parts” from my “primal world underworld”), and “discrete,” developmentally situated “subconscious parts,” and their specific conflicts. Relating this data to the structural literature, Torbert states that the Individualist often attempts to acknowledge and deal with inner conflict and “starts to notice [their] own shadow.” Moreover, Individualists tend to have a multiselved awareness and may “describe themselves as having many personalities or voices.” As such, at the Individualist level, “the prevalent anxiety is around integrating different parts of oneself.” In an attempt to resolve this anxiety or disharmony, the Individualist influences by “listening deeply into others’ worlds…finding patterns” in support of healing and positive change. Noting these parallels, it appears that cultivating the capacity for unconditional presence and acceptance supported the deepening of my translation at the Individualist level (e.g., the uncovering and differentiation of sub-identities).
The capacity to rest in the conscious self, or to hold Loving Space for divergent subconscious parts, implies a capacity to step back and center as the “space holder,” thereby “relating to rather than being embedded in my intrapsychic parts…and their conflicts.” This corresponds to a key capacity of Autonomous persons as follows: “[They]…have access to a logical system which can [hold as object and thereby] integrate psychologically paradoxical elements, therefore less energy needs to be spent on ‘defending.’” They perceive their own “self as a regulator of a self-system with interdependent parts within a larger context.” As such, by practicing Holding Loving Space, and taking as object my multiple subconscious parts and inner conflicts, it appears that I was practicing qualities of, and thereby catalyzing transformational movement toward, the Autonomous level (Teal altitude).
In summation, data themes two and three disclosed aspects of level one Holding Loving Space practices’ capacity to support my integration at the Individualist level by helping me differentiate and honor my multifaceted psyche. This created a space wherein my sub-identities could be embraced and included, laying the foundation for a more comprehensive integration and synthesis in moving towards the Autonomous level.
In themes four, five, and six, I referred to my level two practice of Holding Loving Space, in which I moved from a relatively passive role into a more agentic, orchestrating, and transformationally inspiring role. Therein, I created opportunities in which subconscious “parts that simply have yet to be integrated as aspects of a more deeply unified self-system…[could]…begin to be synthesized, and a higher level of co-creative alliance enacted” around the “superconscious vision” through “alchemical” and “dialogic” processes. This capacity to skillfully and creatively work with, integrate, and synthesize polarized subconscious parts/sub-identities is a feature of the Autonomous level. In contrast to the Individualist’s tendency for confusion and even despair in the face of their multiple conflicting sub-identities, Autonomous persons are capable of “owning” and integrating many disparate parts of themselves. This includes integrating previously compartmentalized sub-identities…They are now capable of rediscovering and owning parts of the self which have previously been disowned, because they seemed too confusing or too threatening. The shadow side of the self can be acknowledged to a greater degree and therefore a new integration and wholeness is possible.
Corresponding to the cocreative alignment around the superconscious vision/purpose in level two Holding Loving Space, the Autonomous “worldview sees purpose in life beyond meeting his or her own needs” and is thereby “involved in a personal quest—a life work—with a sense of vocation.” Furthermore, paralleling the philosophic-dialogic and energetic alignment and evolution around the superconscious vision, the Autonomous person “can envision a transformational learning process over time that can overcome contradictions at any given point in time (in part by collectively creating a new shared vision and mission).”
While there are various general transformational patterns as one transitions between First-Tier levels, such as Kegan’s aforementioned subject-object dynamics, development through the fulcrum to Second Tier brings forth emergent properties in the developmental process. The Individualist level deconstructs the relatively monolithic, self-authoring Conscientious structure, and differentiates it into multiple distinct sub-identities. In contrast, the Autonomous level involves some degree of integration and synthesis of the paradoxical multiplicity and diversity of the previously differentiated First-Tier sub-identities into a complex holonic gestalt. The degree to which this synthesis is embodied, in my interpretation, constitutes the degree of intrapsychic integration at the Autonomous level. Therefore, as pointed to above, the level two practice of Holding Loving Space appears to have supported some degree of such integration within me and therefore, some degree of both transformation toward, and intrapsychic integration at, the Autonomous level.
Finally, in theme seven, I pointed to the causal “stance” of Self-no-self’s “Pure Consciousness,” from which the third level of the practice enacts, via Psychosophy’s unique themens, an interweaving of the “gross and subtle bodies,” in part by pervading them with “simultaneous awareness.” As such, this level of Holding Loving Space seemed to cultivate my capacity to be aware of a complex holonic system of physical, etheric, emotional, mental, and high subtle systems. Based on Cook-Greuter’s research, to actually track this degree of complexity (i.e., “multiple interconnected systems of relationships and processes”) demands the Autonomous capacity to apply a fourth person metasystematic perspective within one’s own self-system. Furthermore, the level three practice of Holding Loving Space from Self-no-self’s Pure Consciousness, seems to involve taking perspective on one’s entire multi-layered experience and sense of identity (“whatever is emerging in my awareness is simply a form object”). This capacity for “watching or witnessing the parades of thoughts and feelings come and go without trying to direct them” is likewise associated, to varying degrees, with the Construct-aware level (as well as higher structures). Therefore, the level three practice of Holding Loving Space likely functioned as an additional developmental catalyst in my growth towards the Autonomous level (Teal altitude), while simultaneously stretching into the Construct-aware levels (Turquoise altitude).
Having reflected on the phenomenological data themes from a structural-developmental perspective, I will now weave together and clarify my evaluations. The above data themes appear to disclose preliminary first-person evidence suggestive that daily practice of: 1) level one Holding Loving Space may support transformational movement from the Conscientious to the Individualist levels, integration at the Individualist level, and beginning transformation toward the early Autonomous level; 2) level two Holding Loving Space may support transformation towards, and intrapsychic integration at, the early Autonomous level; 3) level three Holding Loving Space may further support transformation to the early Autonomous level. Looking at Holding Loving Space more generally, my evaluations can be summarized as follows: the data is suggestive that daily practice of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space meditation supports transformation into, and intrapsychic integration at, both the Individualist and early Autonomous levels in the self-identity line, as evaluated vis-à-vis the AQAL map of the psyche. These tentative conclusions, however, should be held lightly, until others have followed the injunction of Holding Loving Space, apprehended the data, and a communal confirmation/refutation process is engaged, along with further second- and third-person research.
Having formally evaluated the data themes in terms of Holding Loving Space’s potential to support development, I will now turn to a more speculative, personal reflection on some ways in which conducting this research has stimulated new perspectives on this topic. While my bracketed assumption, mentioned above, that Holding Loving Space is generally growthful appears to have been suggestively confirmed, what was surprising to me was the extent to which the data appeared to point to a general parallel between the three levels of practice and the first three stages of postconventional ego development. Specifically, as I studied the structural literature while writing this paper, I noticed that the key instructional elements of the first level of Holding Loving Space appear to exercise primarily healthy Individualist qualities, whereas those of the second level tend to exercise healthy Autonomous qualities, and the key elements of the third level tend to exercise healthy Construct-aware qualities. Since Hamilton developed Holding Loving Space prior to learning of Integral Theory or western developmental structuralism, I take these correspondences to be further confirmation of the universality of these general waves of evolution.
In addition to exercising healthy qualities of each of these structural stages, the corresponding levels of Holding Loving Space also tend to stretch the practitioner into the immediately higher stage, appearing to thereby generate a relatively complete developmental bridge from Conscientious to Autonomous. For example, while the level one practice of Holding Loving Space primarily tends to support healthy translation at the Individualist level, the emphasis on positioning in the conscious self simultaneously supports transformation into Autonomous. Correspondingly, the level two emphasis on cultivating awareness of one’s underlying subconscious philosophical constructs via inquiry based dialogic process bridges into the Construct-aware stage. Finally, the level three emphasis on simultaneous awareness and interweaving of the bodies may support movement towards the Unitive self’s “undifferentiated, phenomenological continuum,” of awareness. While these general correspondences can be highlighted, there is also a great deal of overlapping complexity, as I will touch on below.
Another new understanding that has emerged over the course of this study relates to the fact that I have increasingly come to view Holding Loving Space’s developmental action in terms of biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of morphic resonance. As such, Holding Loving Space appears to bring forth predominantly Second-Tier qualities, synthesizing enduring First-Tier qualities, while connecting to Third-Tier qualities at levels two and three of the practice. Therefore, Holding Loving Space tends to exercise those qualities and thereby enact a Second- or Third-Tier morphic attraction or developmental pull on the practitioner towards the stabilized embodiment of such qualities, depending on the level of practice.
As a corollary of this view, there appears to be a way in which the Psychosophy morphic field pervading the practice of Holding Loving Space includes First-, Second-, and Third-Tier components that influence practitioners regardless of their initial structural level. To illustrate this, I will use the example of a First-Tier individual practicing level one. As the practitioner learns to step back as the conscious self, present with and accepting of his or her subjective landscape, the morphic field pervading Holding Loving Space infuses: 1) their presence with a tacit background of Third-Tier superconscious wisdom; 2) their acceptance with a tacit background of Second-Tier unconditionality and compassion; and 3) their conscious self with a tacit background of Third-Tier awareness of Pure Consciousness and Self-no-self. While these qualities appear to be naturally present in Holding Loving Space’s morphic field, they are significantly amplified by the transmission of the consultant.
A significant result of this multi-tiered morphic field is that it appears to support a more enduring and healthy expression at the Individualist and Autonomous levels. For example, the Individualist claim of acceptance of all perspectives is frequently actualized as a self-contradictory conditional acceptance, wherein assessment and ranking in terms of holistic capacity is not accepted, and certain parts that hold divergent perspectives (e.g., conventional parts that see ranking as good) are likewise rejected. This self-contradictory transitional feature of the Individualist level stands in contrast to the unconditional acceptance of level one Holding Loving Space, which incorporates Second-Tier qualities. These include an intuitive recognition of the partial truths and varying degrees of maturation associated with the holarchical development of one’s sub-identities so that they are “accepted as complex […] beings with good and bad traits,” possessing an innate capacity and tendency to further evolve. Additionally, via Psychosophy’s morphic field, the unconditional acceptance of level one Holding Loving Space activates a higher octave resonance with the Third-Tier quality of “infinite Light/Love,” which then recursively descends to infuse that acceptance.
In this way, the Second- and Third-Tier qualities of Psychosophy’s morphic field appear to infuse Holding Loving Space, modifying and re-patterning its First-Tier holonic sub-components. As a result this limits the expression of transitional, unhealthy qualities, while allowing for the expression of uniquely healthy enduring elements at the Individualist and Autonomous levels. Extrapolating further, in the context of such higher-level morphic resonance, development may not require a full expression of transitional structures before enduring structures can be expressed. For example, there is no evidence that the Individualist must become an extreme postmodern pluralist before jettisoning such extremism and expressing the heartfelt care, openness, and compassion of its healthy expression.
Looking back at my own process, I can see that an important result of connecting with this multi-tiered morphic field through level one Holding Loving Space is that it did not propel me to prematurely transcend my work of healthfully differentiating my psyche. Rather, it supported me to profoundly distinguish, include, and heal my various parts, thereby establishing the requisite levels of intrapsychic differentiation to subsequently bring forth a more healthy, robust, and inclusive vertical integration of First-Tier sub-identities, as I moved towards a more comprehensive integration at the Autonomous level. This seems particularly important given that there appears to be a tendency among individuals at the Autonomous level to insufficiently include enduring qualities at the Individualist level, resulting in a tendency to insufficiently differentiate the psyche, thereby inhibiting a more full integration at the Autonomous level. Simply put, insufficient Individualist differentiation leads to insufficient Autonomous integration.
Given that Holding Loving Space appears to support the enactment of an intrapsychic synthesis that robustly includes, differentiates, and integrates the enduring sub-identity structures on all First-Tier levels—thereby expressing enduring qualities at the Individualist and Autonomous levels—it may constitute an important bridge towards a more vibrantly healthy integral embodiment. As such, Holding Loving Space appears to support a highly balanced transformational (ascending) and integrative (descending) developmental movement that, to my knowledge, is seldom found in a single growth technology.
Finally, in reflecting on what I could have done differently, it could have been useful to have a clearer understanding of how my process unfolded from day to day and therefore, in my future research I would like to more systematically track this by journaling after every meditation. Furthermore, it would have been interesting to note in my journal other extraneous factors in my life to get a sense of their possible affects on my meditative experience. Having completed the phenomenology section, let us now turn to my structural self-assessment, beginning with the research design.
Structural Self-Assessment Methods
Research Design
The specific design procedure I used to generate the data and carry out the structural analysis of my capacities and constraints as an epistemic subject and researcher of Holding Loving Space included the detailing of my level of development (or “center of gravity” bandwidth) in multiple lines or intelligences by conducting an integral psychograph assessment in accordance with Wilber’s model, as well as through documenting my Enneagram personality type according to Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson’s Insight Approach and typological psychometric.
The integral psychograph assessment was engaged over a period of 14 months beginning in December 2006 and coming to a close in February 2008. The process was carried out as follows: 1) self-assessment through first-person reflection; 2) second-person feedback and hermeneutic assessment; and 3) third-person psychometric data. More specifically, the first-person assessment entailed: a) systematic phenomenological reflection on my own direct subjective experience, carried out in a semi-structured manner, which included multiple structured reflection sessions varying in length from twenty to ninety minutes, as well as unstructured and spontaneous self-reflection. This was followed by a rough assessment on a broadly differentiated low-medium-high scale in terms of developmental complexity: b) embodied and reflective reading of the relevant developmental psychology literature, noting degrees of resonance between the specific holistic patterns or configurations of the intrapsychic structures detailed, and my direct experience, followed by honest reflection and interpretation with respect to the patterned levels of complexity from which I tend to live most of the time.
The second-person assessment involved: a) the gathering of hermeneutic data in the form of intersubjective feedback from teachers, family, and close friends familiar to some degree with the developmental literature; as well as b) through an independent assessment of my structural capacities by an Integral psychologist and clinical psychotherapist, completed on October 5th, 2007. Her assessment drew on data gathered over the course of around two-and-a-half years of weekly (75 minute) sessions (beginning in May of 2005) held at her offices in San Rafael, California and later in Sebastopol, California.
Finally, the third-person assessment was conducted by engaging a formal developmental psychometric test for further triangulation of the data regarding the self-identity/ego-development line—namely, the Sentence Completion Test (SCTi-MAP), designed by Susanne Cook-Greuter and based on the work of Jane Loevinger (WUSCT). The Sentence Completion Test was completed on the night of January 17, 2008 in the computer lab at John F. Kennedy University, the results being received on February 18, 2008. To gather the data beyond simply assessing my level of vertical development, I reviewed Cook-Greuter and Loevinger in my research notebook while noting patterns of resonance with particular characteristics and themes.
With regard to the Enneagram typological assessment, I took The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI Version 2.5) in January 2005, for my participation in an Enneagram course at John F. Kennedy University, taught by Dr. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens. Following the results, I began a process of intensive self-inquiry, using a phenomenological-hermeneutic reflective reading method (similar to the method described above with regard to the first-person aspect of my psychograph assessment) so as to triangulate the third-person test results with first- and second-person data. Additionally, my personality type was verified independently, via hermeneutic assessment, by both Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson during the Part II of the Enneagram Institute Teacher’s Training, held at the Kirkridge Retreat Center in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania in October 2006. In order to explicate some ways in which my dominant typological structure affects me as a researcher, I reviewed Riso and Hudson’s work and recorded themes that resonated as salient in my research notebook. Having delineated my research methods, let us now examine the data and its implications in terms of my strengths and weaknesses as a researcher. I will begin with the results of my integral psychograph assessment, followed by analysis, before doing the same with regard to the Enneagram.
Data—Vertical Structures
Below are the results of the triangulated (first-, second-, and third-person) integral psychograph assessment. This assessment catalogued the vertical bandwidth in which my awareness tends to be structured in various lines. I often:
• inhabit a Cross-paradigmatic cognitive structure,
• relate from an entry Global Perspective in the interpersonal line,
• identify with an entry Autonomous self-sense,
• hold FlexFlow values,
• operate from an entry Universal Ethical Principles structure in the moral line,
• orient towards Self-Actualization needs,
• experience my body through the Flow Body structure in the somatic line,
• operate from Emerging Emotions in terms of my emotional intelligence,
• relate to the domain of aesthetics in terms of an entry Re-creative structure.
More precisely, this means that around fifty percent of the time I inhabit these structures, which are more like probability waves; roughly twenty-five percent of the time I operate from a lower-level range of complexity, and the remaining twenty-five percent of the time, the immediately higher one. While all of these levels in their respective lines affect my awareness in important ways, I have selected what I see as a salient structure in relation to the question of my limitations and capacities as a researcher of the practice of Holding Loving Space—namely, the self-identity line.
As stated above, my center of gravity in the self-identity line is roughly at the entry Autonomous level (Teal altitude). While, for example, a peak phase Autonomous identification would mean that one hovers in a probability cloud that also includes roughly twenty five percent of the time at the Individualist (and lower) ego-structure(s) on the lower-end, and twenty five percent at the Construct-aware level on the higher-end, because my center of gravity appears to be at the entry Autonomous stage, my probability cloud spans from the Individualist range (residing there around 37.5% of the time) on the lower-end to the early Construct-aware structure (roughly 12.5% of the time) on the higher-end. This means that my locus of identity predominantly resides between these two poles in the Autonomous range (approximately 50% of the time). This bandwidth of consciousness has multiple structural characteristics that affect me as a researcher in myriad ways, including the: 1) capacity to perceive meta-systematic patterns and interrelationships within oneself; 2) understanding of the enacted or socially constructed nature of reality; 3) anxiety around not fulfilling personal potential and a tendency to try to appear reasonable and mature; 4) potential to experience ordinary constraints as deadening. I chose these themes, which are characteristics of the Autonomous structure, based on patterns of resonance that I noted while reviewing the text, as mentioned above. However, I have also included brief references to my Individualist tendencies within each theme, while omitting the Construct-aware level due to its relatively less pronounced prevalence.
My capacity to perceive meta-systematic patterns enables me as a researcher to “comprehend multiple interconnected systems of relationships and processes.” This serves me as a researcher in that it tends to allow me to look at phenomena, such as Holding Loving Space, and see the big picture connections and non-linear interplay within and between complex systems. I often appreciate the vast intricacies involved, and this capacity might make me well suited for inquiry into some of the psychospiritual complexities related to Holding Loving Space. For example, I tend to be attuned to my intrapsychic dynamics and multilayered systems of parts, and am often capable of relating to and coping with their polarizations and conflicts. I may therefore have the potential to enact and research a certain level of Holding Loving Space in relation to integration. On the other hand, this very capacity can also lead me to spin out into an endless sea of fractal chaos and “go huge” with my approach to research in ways that can be inappropriate and unrealistic relative to the pragmatic constraints of the project. Furthermore, it can lead to major problems in terms of producing the necessary simplifications that are often called for in the context of research, due to the desire to include the fullness of what I see and experience, as well as a tangential tendency in both data collection and writing. Such problematic tendencies are also amplified to the degree I am operating from the Individualistic identity wherein I can easily slide on the endlessly recursive chains of signifiers straight into aperspectival madness. Furthermore, as I will discuss below, this tendency can also be reinforced and intensified further due to my personality structure.
Understanding the enacted or socially constructed nature of reality in a personal-experiential way allows me to engage a mixed methods approach to research in a way that is sensitive to the complexity and enigmatic nature of phenomena as they are brought forth in constantly shifting epistemological, methodological, and ontological contexts. In this way, I am aware that Holding Loving Space is not simply lying around “out there” as a pre-given reality for me to see and objectively reflect as the researcher, but am actually co-participating with it, through various perspectival frames, so as to construct ontologically grounded stories that both illumine and occlude. Given my orientation as such, I have the capacity to research the conditions of my enactment as a researcher of Holding Loving Space, attempt some extent of their disclosure, and therefore bring more meaning to my research statements. From certain perspectives, this can also be problematic for me as a researcher in that it discards the possibility of reflecting any purely objective truths (in the sense of a naïve realism) and evokes complex and challenging questions in relation to the story-telling/research process. To further complicate my research process, such understanding can make it challenging to communicate my findings with language that can be grasped by the average person. Moreover, when I tend towards the Individualist structure, I can feel confused as to how to proceed, loosing sight of my power to choose to strategically guide and participate in the chaotic co-enactive processes through which reality is brought forth—and thereby to tell transformational stories that skillfully serve to actualize higher potentials and purposes.
The anxiety around not fulfilling personal potential and a tendency to try to appear reasonable and mature can affect me negatively as a researcher in that I can sometimes engage the project with less than my fully spontaneous and raw self-expression, creative license, as well as efficiency. The desire to fulfill my potential as a researcher and come across as “put together” can devolve into an anxiety to perform at a certain level and a kind of perfectionism that can result in temporary stifling of the research and writing process; it can also lead to rationalizations and a tendency to push away a more unfiltered expression in nearly every aspect of the research process. Moreover, to the extent that I get identified with this anxiety, I can quickly find myself in the Individualist range wherein the dynamic can shift into a space of perplexity and intolerance of interior disharmony, as well as diminished ability to mediate among multiple parts of myself. This could also be an asset to me as a researcher in that it can occasionally lead to deep inquiry into the question of how to best engage the possibilities for potentially better research strategies. However, more often than not, I enact the less positive side of this dynamic.
Regarding the potential to experience ordinary constraints as deadening at the Autonomous stage, I sometimes experience aspects of my interpretation of the norms of research, even in a mixed methods context, to be somewhat constrictive and stultifying. This dynamic is then experienced in some ways as a constraint to a more flexible and self-defined creative expression and can lead me as a researcher to feel less inspired and adopt a somewhat perfunctory approach to the research. At the Individualist level, this dynamic tends to take on a subtle contempt, albeit incongruent with my consciously held cognitive perspective, for restrictive conventions in general. Regarding Holding Loving Space, parts of me can feel challenged to explore and document this profoundly fluid interior experience within the ordinary constraints of this research project. On the other hand, constraint can also be a profound catalyst for creativity, and therefore this tendency to feel stifled can be transformed through choosing to look at it from a different perspective. Having delineated some pronounced features of my self-identity structure and explicated some of the ways in which they affect my strengths and weaknesses as a researcher, let me now do the same with regard to my Enneagram personality type.
Data—Horizontal Structures
The results of my “123p” triangulated Enneagram assessment conclude that my personality resonates with, and is predominantly structured by, aspects of the Enneagram Type Seven, known as the “Enthusiast.” Two salient aspects of the Enneatype Seven that structure my awareness and affect me as a researcher include the tendency to: 1) seek freedom and include everything and 2) adopt the stance of a generalist. These themes are deeply intertwined according to the logos of the Seven structure, thus I will address them together.
The Seven’s passion of gluttony—that is to say, the tendency to seek freedom and include everything—is fuelled by a deep subconscious fear of deprivation which, in turn, arises from a profound lack of trust that the universe will provide the nourishment he or she hungers for. From this arises a core schema-strategy, or fixation (ego-planning), that the ego must therefore ravenously seize every possible opportunity to try to fill itself up while defending from its fear of deprivation. This fear of deprivation leads to the ubiquitous tendency to preserve options and seek freedom. Like a hungry ghost, however, the fixated Seven can never get enough. As a result, they attempt to gluttonously include everything and preserve their sense of freedom and possibility in any/all areas of life (including the intellectual). As such, Sevens often become extremely versatile generalists, developing basic competencies in many diverse fields of human endeavor. It is this very fixation to include everything and assume the stance of a generalist that allows Sevens to cultivate a talent for synthetic thinking, as well to become “masters of span” in the intellectual domain.
This tendency to include everything and show up as a renaissance generalist, or jack-of-all-trades, serves me as a researcher by helping me make connections across multiple contexts and see the “view from 50,000 feet,” as Wilber calls it. However, the very same epicurean propensity to include everything also has the potential to severely hurt me as a researcher because it means that it can be extremely difficult to establish the necessary limits and degree of focus crucial to the success of a research project. In terms of Holding Loving Space, this fixated part of me wants to research every possible aspect of it using as many methods as possible. For example, in attempting to choose between brain wave research and survey research for the empirical methodology, I felt compelled to do both. Such choices can potentially be unrealistically demanding and profoundly scattering in the context of research. Moreover, because the Seven can be so bent on including everything, and often possesses a quick and agile mind, the temptation to cut corners and succumb to intellectual promiscuity (the so-called “instant expert” syndrome) can cause the quality and integrity of the research to suffer. Despite a degree of counterbalancing due to the tendency, conferred by my Autonomous structure, to highly value truthfulness and authenticity, it is nevertheless a potential concern that such an unconscious pattern could sabotage me as a researcher—hence the importance of me bringing this tendency to awareness and taking action to avoid it.
And lastly, span or breadth of knowledge can be brought forth at the expense of depth. Therefore, to avoid a shallow research exposition of Holding Loving Space, a topic that is potentially so broad and far-reaching, it is important that I address this possible pitfall. Interestingly, in the Enneagram system, Sevens integrate and find the antidote to their fixation by learning to stay present with their observations in the style of the healthy Five, which Riso and Hudson call the “investigator.” The healthy Five can be seen as the “master of depth,” and relates to the world from a typically “scientific” observational stance that is self-contained, scrupulous, detail-oriented, and thereby expresses clarity and penetrating insight. Before discussing the above data in a larger context, drawing linkages to the overarching research question, it is necessary to first examine the issues and categories of validity for structural analysis.
The validity of structural analysis rests first on the use of acknowledged and rigorously proven psychological models and psychometric testing procedures. In this study, I have drawn on models that have, in many cases, been developed over a period of decades in a tightly coupled relationship with the research data. Furthermore, many of these models have been tested cross-culturally, confirming their accuracy and efficacy as such. Wilber summarizes the multiple bodies of research and explains their esteemed recognition and cross-cultural validity:
It should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions—from Abraham Maslow to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves—are based on extensive amounts of research and data. They are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage theorists…(Piaget, Loevinger, Maslow, and Graves) have had their models checked in First, Second and Third World countries.
This study has made use of many of the above models and, whenever possible, has employed the use of rigorous psychometric tests (Cook-Greuter’s SCTi-MAP Sentence Completion Test and Riso and Hudson’s RHETI test). In addition to the use of acknowledged models and test procedures, the validity of structural analysis is engendered through the triangulation of first-, second-, and third-person perspective-methods of assessment, which I have likewise employed. And lastly, validity in this methodological domain is grounded in one’s honest and demonstrable attempt to assess oneself openly from a commitment to truth and attempt to take a third-person perspective on oneself.
Discussion
The above structural self-assessment data was generated, in part, in an effort to specify key aspects of the epistemological configuration from which I am enacting the phenomenon of Holding Loving Space meditation via the multiple perspective-methods employed in this study. While the phenomenological section looked at Holding Loving Space through the lens of my own subjectivity, the structural self-assessment took as object, me—the subject—reflexively turned back on myself to focus on the holistic patterns that structure my subjectivity. As such, I have sought to implicitly specify aspects of what Wilber calls the Kosmic address (i.e.,—the sum total of my AQAL constellation) from which I am enacting Holding Loving Space throughout this research. For example, in the phenomenology section, what is revealed is, in part, an entry Autonomous/Enneatype Seven’s inside view of a first-person perspective on a first-person meditative phenomenon. Therefore, I have disclosed the information necessary to specify the basic Kosmic address from which I tend to enact the phenomenon of Holding Loving Space: altitude plus perspective-method plus object of investigation.
To address some meta-themes regarding the structural data and its direct connection to my research on Holding Loving Space, particularly surprising to me was a greater clarification of the way in which the Autonomous (and Individualist) structure(s) and the type Seven structure seem to interlock in ways that mutually reinforce and amplify various tendencies within both. For example the Seven’s propensity for synthetic thinking, the fear of deprivation, and subsequent desire to include everything seems to be unleashed when expressed or “played out” through the Autonomous ego-structure’s capacity to perceive such complexity. These two structures overlay each other to potentially produce a dignified capacity for synthesizing new possibilities, connections, and integrations. Yet on the other hand, they can also interface to bring forth a potentially disastrous tendency to relate to complexity as an ocean of recursively swirling possibilities and options that must all be included with gluttonous zeal.
In my experience as a researcher exploring Holding Loving Space, I tend to experience the metasystematic complexity involved in (higher levels of) the practice—and sometimes make useful connections—while simultaneously I am aware of the tendency to try to include all of it. The fourth-person perspective of my dominant self-identity structures discloses an intrapsychic worldspace in which there are myriad options in terms of disclosing a truthful story of the complex interior meshwork of physical, etheric, emotional, mental, egoic, and spiritual ecologies involved. At the same time, my Seven tendency can make it extremely challenging at times to decide which options to choose in telling a story, because doing so necessarily excludes other options and can feel like a squandering of my freedom. This ends up distracting me from a deeper source of knowing from which to guide me in choosing among possibilities. As such, key insights have arisen for me in the structural analysis in beginning to distinguish how these developmental and typological structures are interrelating, particularly in relation to the ways in which I can unconsciously play out the tendency toward intellectual gluttony and a consequent scattering in my research. More clearly understanding and reflecting on the nexus of these structures and their mutually reinforcing and amplifying tendencies, I feel a greater spaciousness to choose to trust in my inner knowing to guide my process of focusing my energy and telling a story, through my research of Holding Loving Space, that might illumine and activate those evolutionary trajectories that might actually be of service.
Having completed both the phenomenological inquiry and the structural self-assessment, I will conclude by summarizing and reflecting on some key insights that have emerged through the course of my first-person inquiry before discussing the value of conducting such self-research as a foundation for further Integral Research.
Conclusion
This study, being the first phase of a larger three-phase Integral Research project, explored the subjective phenomenon of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space practice through the inside (1-p) and outside (3-p) perspectives of phenomenology and structuralism, respectively. The phenomenological inquiry illumined my personal connection and lived experience of Holding Loving Space, while the structural self-assessment disclosed my key epistemological constraints and potentials as a researcher.
Brought forth through this unique developmental and typological constellation, the phenomenological data disclosed the following key themes: 1) from identification with a persona of success to recognition of repression and inner conflict; 2) relaxation and opening of defensive boundaries, and beginning psychodynamic healing; 3) distinguishing, connecting with, and disembedding from subconscious parts/subpersonalities; 4) embodied connection with the superconscious vision; 5) agapic alchemy towards essential translation; 6) philosophical dialogue leading to co-creative synergy with subconscious parts; 7) simultaneous awareness and interweaving of gross, subtle, and causal bodies. Furthermore, these phenomenological data-themes disclosed initial first-person evidence suggestive that: daily practice of Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space meditation supports transformation into, and intrapsychic integration at, both the Individualist and Autonomous levels in the self-identity line, as defined by the AQAL map of the psyche. More specifically, it may support: transformational movement from the Conscientious to the Individualist; integration at the Individualist; further transformation to early Autonomous; and integration at early Autonomous level. Level one Holding Loving Space appeared to support transformation and integration primarily in relation to the Individualist level, while levels two and three did so largely in relation to the early Autonomous level.
Furthermore, morphic resonance was posited as a possible generative mechanism underlying Holding Loving Space’s potential to catalyze such development. The practice itself seems to embody and exercise primarily Second- and Third-Tier qualities and thereby enact a morphic attraction or developmental pull towards a stabilized embodiment of such qualities. These Second- and Third-Tier qualities of Psychosophy’s morphic field appear to infuse Holding Loving Space, modifying and re-patterning its First-Tier holonic subcomponents. As a result this morphic field limits the expression of transitional, unhealthy qualities, while supporting the expression of uniquely healthy enduring elements at the Individualist and Autonomous levels.
While this initial data appears to be promising in terms of suggesting Holding Loving Space’s transformational and integrative efficacy in a broader context, my tentative conclusions should be held lightly until additional first-, second- and third-person research is carried out and triangulated. Only then will we arrive at stronger, more generalizable conclusions. Therefore, I see this study, in many ways, as a pilot project for future research.
Such future research could entail systematic phenomenological inquiry, grounded in Kosmic addressing principles. Conducted by multiple practitioners of adequate training, this research would likely include intersubjective confirmation/refutation checks, drawing on the Psychosophy Research Method in tandem with the Integral Model so as to specify the Kosmic addresses of both subject and object. As a result, one can mitigate the otherwise ubiquitous problems of “inter-individual variability.” A key aspect of such research could also employ rigorous and proven “third-person” structural psychometrics (e.g., the sentence completion test) in the context of longitudinal research on a large group of practitioners inhabiting multiple developmental levels. Additionally, hermeneutic interviewing, ethnomethodological research (on groups of practitioners), brain wave electroencephalography (EEG), empirical survey research, and systems analysis could likewise be employed for purposes of triangulation and tetra-correlation of the data.
Given Holding Loving Space’s apparent power to support a uniquely healthy Individualist expression, it appears that this practice may be poised to help remedy some of the problematic tendencies in the postmodern culture before they settle into more crystallized Kosmic habits. Furthermore, since such healthy Individualist expression is a prerequisite for a more robust intrapsychic integration at the Autonomous level, the technique seems to be supporting the cocreation of a healthy morphic pathway to an emergent integral culture. As such, Holding Loving Space appears to be capable of addressing in some way, what are arguably two key collective needs: 1) the creation of contexts for postmodern Individualists to express where they are at in healthier ways; and 2) the offering of a bridge from the postmodern culture into the heights and depths of a healthy Second-Tier embodiment. Since Psychosophy’s Holding Loving Space practice appears to have the power to address these needs, I submit to you that its emergence and offering in this phase of humanities unfoldment, may be more than mere coincidence, but rather, an expression of Spirit’s own creative genius and grace.
Having summarized the data, the limitations of this study, my recommendations for future research, as well as some salient implications, I will conclude by discussing the value of integrally researching one’s self as an integral researcher. As I have attempted to illustrate throughout this study, employing a reflective, Integral approach to researching one’s own subjectivity as a researcher from both inside (1-p) and outside (3-p) perspective-methods tends to bring forth inquiry that can be more meaningful, emancipatory, and effective. Therefore, in my view, it provides a powerful foundation for subsequent research and is often the optimal starting point in conducting Integral Research.
It is more meaningful because it allows us to disclose and deepen aspects of our understanding of the key structures (e.g., developmental, typological, historical, cultural) through which research is enacted (i.e., our Kosmic address), and thereby make more nuanced assertions with regard to the meaning of our data. Without some degree of this disclosure of the subjective structures required to enact a particular reality, research quickly relegates itself to an essentially meaningless metaphysical game of unconsciously regurgitating our structures and calling it objective, universal truth. Faced with increasing evidence that the structures we inhabit help to fashion and determine what is actually “seen” or brought forth in our inquiry, I believe that we as integral researchers have the responsibility and opportunity to make our research more meaningful and relevant for our modern/postmodern world by beginning to engage reflexive inquiry regarding our own subjectivity and disclose those results as much as possible.
An Integral approach to self-research in preparation for subsequent inquiry is likewise more emancipatory in that it invites us to engage a process of self-reflection such that we can deepen our capacity to take perspective on the constraints of our own awareness and the ways in which they can show up in our life and research. Such a process can generate transformational insight in which what was previously subject is made object in a manner that augments and informs action. In the context of researching ourselves as researchers, we are bringing to consciousness salient tendencies that bias and support our inquiry, thereby giving us greater freedom to consciously adapt and choose our praxis of research in the moment.
Such self-reflective insights can thereby be applied to inform a more effective and nuanced approach to Integral Research by adapting, refining, and tailoring our approach such that it capitalizes on and amplifies our strengths while mitigating our problematic biases as researchers. Additionally, the efficacy of research can be enhanced, as any less explicitly reflective emergent themes and categories disclosed through the initial first-person phase of inquiry are drawn upon in directing second- and third-person phases of the research. So as to offer a practice in which such insight and efficacy can be explicitly drawn out, I have delineated the structure of an iterative-reflective approach to Integral Research, as presented in Appendix C, in which research is punctuated, after each (first-, second-, and third-person) phase of research, by cyclical inquiry processes. These processes, or inquiry cycles, are intended to support more and more honed and evolved iterations of our approach to research by deepening awareness and insight through further, post-research reflection, before feeding back such insight into an adaptive process of preparing for future methodologies.
Integrally researching oneself as an integral researcher not only leads to more meaningful, emancipatory, and effective approaches to research but can also synergize with the practice of Holding Loving Space, together bringing forth a way of being-in-the-world in which our inquiry cycles become a moment-to-moment presence (to the multiple horizons of our awareness) through which we attune and adapt ourselves to increasingly take action in a way that is of the greatest service to all beings.
Appendix A: Psychosophy Consciousness Coordinate System
The Consciousness Coordinate System (CCS) is a cartography of human subjectivity designed to support researchers in systematically exploring, studying, and guiding the myriad aspects of interior experience, leading to the emergence of a robust and rigorous subjective science. Below the diagram is a partial glossary of abridged CCS terminology descriptions, intended to provide a cursory introduction. Please note that there are various versions of the CCS that allow subjective researchers to map human experience via multiple lenses.
Partial CCS Glossary
Vertical Y-Axis: Bodily and vibrational band levels, including a detailed breakdown of the sub-band frequency ranges within each body and their corresponding physiological, psychological, and spiritual functions. On the y-axis, one cultivates awareness, growth, and integration of the bodies.
Horizontal X-Axis: The exterior world or co-creation environment in which the y-axis bodies express themselves. This is the communal field of co-creative play, intersubjectivity, and relationship.
Internal Z-Axis: Layers of Absolute Self-no-self and Pure Consciousness that are looking through all y-axis bodies and at all x-axis worlds/frequency bands.
Z-Axis Perspective: From the perspective of the z-axis, the x- and y-axes are two aspects of one underlying continuum—vibrational substance.
X- and Y-Axis Polarities: All x- and y-axis phenomena can be experienced as an emergent synthesis of discrete qualities, each of which exists within a range of vibrational polarity, such as projective and receptive, yang and yin, archetypal masculine and feminine, proton and electron, sine and cosine, motion and stillness, light and dark, hard and soft, confidence and humility, speaking and listening, command and inquiry, thinking and opening to inspiration, divine will and divine surrender, etc. More extreme polarities are located farther out from the y-axis. For any specific type of phenomenon, the x-axis can be labeled with all the relevant polarities needed to describe its sub-components.
X-Y Axis Interchangeability: One person’s x-axis equals another person’s y-axis, to name one example.
Theory of Windows: A theory that all discrete entities, such as atoms, molecules, cells, plants, animals, humans, etc., are windows through which the same Self-no-self is looking at all other windows, and at itself within all other windows, via the universal perceptive medium of Pure Consciousness.
Self-no-self (Sns): Is the pointer in Psychosophy to the ultimate subject, or Absolute Self, which is not a self in any normal sense of the word. It is methodologically defined as the result of a series of subjective steps leading one to release all one can release. It is experienced as entirely distinct from Pure Consciousness, which has its own unique methodological definition. Both Sns and Pure Consciousness are experienced as being completely outside the realm of existence, including the highest levels of the subtle, superconscious bodies, yet still contacting existence equally at every point. On the CCS, this is graphically represented by placing Sns and Pure Consciousness on their own internal z-axis, which can focus in and through any point or window on the y-axis of bodily levels, while still remaining utterly free. Sns is also experienced as the source of all choice and intention, which it focuses through holonic systems of bodily windows, thereby regularly interjecting new causes into the field of vibrational existence, which is its eternal playground/playmate.
Pure Consciousness: Is methodologically defined as the result of a series of subjective steps leading to the subjective experience of attention moving from object to object to object. When this attention/consciousness has been isolated from all objects and studied independently, it has been found to possess various attributes, including: capacity for focus in any direction; molding itself to the shape of any object; completely pervading the interior of any object; simultaneous focus on multiple objects; expansion and contraction, and promotion of accelerated evolution in any entity upon which it focuses, etc.
Consciousness Variable: A single element of a consciousness equation, such as a focus on the emotional body.
Consciousness Equation: The aggregate of a particular constellation of consciousness variables on the CCS, such as the variables comprising Holding Loving Space for a subconscious part.
Individual Consciousness Equation Stream: The ever-changing stream or “graph” of the consciousness equations of one’s moment-to-moment living experience.
Non-dual Unity Point: An unmarked unity point “beyond” the Self-no-self point on the z-axis that extends outward to spherically encompass and pervade the whole CCS, symbolizing a perfect and ever evolving unity of all CCS variables, equations, and aspects.
CCS Release: Recognizing that any awareness of the CCS in any way is itself a consciousness equation that can be regularly released. Subjective researchers are encouraged to periodically release the CCS utterly, and experience the free flowing stream of subjectivity without any model or map.
© Scott Hamilton 1993, 2006, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Appendix B: Hedlund Integral Psychograph Assessment, March 2008
Appendix C: The Iterative-Reflective Design Model for Integral Research
Similar to aspects of grounded theory, action-inquiry, and other qualitative and mixed-method traditions (e.g., the “taxonomy development model” of exploratory design), the iterative-reflective approach to Integral Research that I am delineating here is a structure that is punctuated after each (first-, second-, and third-person) phase of research by cyclical inquiry processes. These processes, or inquiry cycles, are intended to support more and more honed and evolved iterations of our approach to research by deepening awareness and insight through reflection before feeding back such insight into an adaptive process of preparing for future methodologies.
The first inquiry cycle, as I am suggesting it, begins upon the completion of the phase one/first-person inside/outside research with a reflective-inquiry session wherein the researcher engages a process of reviewing and contemplating the a posteriori themes and insights brought forth through the first-person research. The whole of the researcher’s own self-research is then considered in what can be a powerful process of weaving into a synthetic gestalt, both the inside and outside perspectives on one’s own subjectivity—holding it as object in awareness—and allowing new insight to emerge. When that process of reflecting back on the first-person research has fully ripened and arrived at an organic point of completion, one is ready to begin a process of projecting forward the insights gleaned such that they may inform and enrich future research. The fruits of our reflective inquiry contain the seeds from which our second- and third-person research-practices can sprout and can grow more vibrantly (becoming more meaningful, emancipatory, and effective).
Adaptive-projective inquiry (or simply projective inquiry) begins by practicing epoché in relation to one’s preconceived strategies or plans for future second-, and third-person phases of the research so as to create on open space in which a fuller spectrum of possibilities for future research can emerge. From this place, one then connects with the field of insight that has emerged through the reflective inquiry and begins to brain-heart-belly storm the most optimal approach to future research, noting the patterns of resonance in relation to those ideas. One then begins to relax their bracketing of prior strategies and allows them to adapt in any way to come into resonance with their felt-sense of those most optimal strategies that have emerged. The approach to future second- and third-person research is then further adapted until it feels appropriately grounded in relation to any pragmatic concerns or constraints. Finally, an evolved iteration of one’s research plan or approach becomes a clear and concrete roadmap for the subsequent second- and third-person phases of the project, which the researcher then begins to carryout.
Upon the completion of the phase two/second-person research, a parallel inquiry cycle is engaged. The third-person research approach is then tailored and completed. At this point, the researcher then engages a final inquiry cycle wherein the numerous distinct themes, insights, and perspectives that have been disclosed throughout the course of the research project as a whole are taken up in a final reflective inquiry cycle (reflecting not only on the third-person research but all three phases). In contrast to the reflective inquiries in phases one and two, this phase three process is more than a reflective inquiry, but is also a synthetic meta-analysis. The intention of this final reflective inquiry is to triangulate and tetra-correlate the a posteriori data-perspectives so as to weave them into a coherent tapestry or meta-perspective that clearly delineates the most salient interrelationships among the emergent themes from the first-, second-, and third-person phases of the research. This process should also include some reflective comments regarding the researcher’s role in the data disclosure, their personal transformation/emancipation, as well as experience with the iterative-reflective process itself. Lastly, a final projective inquiry process can be used to inform one’s approach to, and starting point for, future Integral Research/Practice. Having articulated the basic structure of this iterative-reflective approach, I will now offer a cursory sketch as to how I might apply aspects of it in relation the forthcoming phases of my Integral Research.
With regard to my future research of Holding Loving Space via second-person methodologies, I have recalibrated my approach such that I will formulate my hermeneutic interview questions based on the emergent categories disclosed through my phenomenological research, attempting to clarify, deepen, or fill in gaps (e.g., exploring Holding Loving Space in terms of morphic attraction, inviting my interviewee to comment on the validity of my structural correlations, etc.). In addition, being increasingly aware, due to my structural self-assessment, of the ways in which my early Autonomous self-identity and Enneatype Seven structures interlock to amplify my proclivity for intellectual gluttony, I have adapted my approach such that I will ask fewer questions that are more focused and honed to cultivate depth, as well as hold clearer boundaries in terms of time and topic, thereby refining my hermeneutic inquiry.
Moreover, based on my increased awareness of my Enneatype Seven tendency to adopt the stance of a generalist, I have decided to redesign my ethnomethodological research. I have abandoned my original notion of a broad, open-ended ethnographic study of a group of Psychosophy practitioners, in favor of a focus group centered specifically on the relationship between Holding Loving Space practice and the cultivation of mutual understanding (which was a gap in the first-person research). Furthermore, I had previously not considered the possibility of exploring the inter-individual response variability in terms of typological dynamics. As a result of reflecting on my capacity to be present to the enacted nature of data through the whole of my first-person research, I have chosen to include this lens in my analysis of the intersubjective patterns associated with the focus group data. Similarly, an application of my first-person insight to my ethnomethodological research design could be to attempt to consciously dance in and out of the habitual roles and perspectives associated with my AQAL constellation as I am interacting with my co-researchers, and noting any impacts on the group dynamics or collaborative inquiry.
Finally, looking toward the third-person inquiry, I could translate my first-person themes into variables for the survey research, exploring the various hypotheses generated via the phenomenological research empirically for purposes of triangulation. Furthermore, regarding my increasingly conscious tendency to relate to ordinary constraints as deadening, I have modified my approach to practice reframing constraint as a catalyst for greater creativity by designing the survey with fewer variables, additionally holding the intention to more richly reveal their interrelational structure. My increased appreciation of typological and developmental factors in the enactment of meditative experience (conferred through my first-person research) will support me to take such factors into account, to the extent it is appropriate and realistic, in the survey aspects of my third-person research (e.g., designing questions as altitude identifiers, etc.). With respect to my systems analysis, I have modified my research design to draw on my strengths as a synthetic thinker, conferred largely due to the coupling of my Cross-paradigmatic cognition and my Enneatype Seven epistemological perspective. This is so I can pursue what I am calling a “visionary inquiry,” which explores the complex interrelationships between the individual interior meditation practice of Holding Loving Space, intrapsychic integration and transformation, the cultivation of mutual understanding, and the possibility of supporting greater flourishing in our planetary eco-social systems. As conveyed through the above exemplary sketches, the self-reflective insights and emergent data-themes brought forth through the process of integrally researching oneself, as an integral researcher, can be of service in the formulation of subsequent second- and third-person approaches to Integral Research.
Appendix D: The AQAL Model’s Five Elements
The Four Quadrant With Some Levels
Quadrants refer to the four fundamental perspective-dimensions, or aspects of awareness, available to us as sentient beings. These four primary perspectives convey the basic understanding that all individual holons (from quarks to humans) have an interior and exterior and are not only individuals but also part of a collective. In other words, we all have interiors (UL: subjective, psychological experience) as well as exteriors (UR: objective, behavioral/physiological aspects) and are part of collectives, which likewise have both interiors (LL: intersubjective, cultural) as well as exteriors (LR: interobjective, socioecological systems). Levels refer to the various emergent degrees of complexity or depth that arise within each of these four quadrants. For example, in the interior dimension of the individual (UL), levels refer to the various stages of psychological development (e.g.—from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric). Lines refer to the numerous distinct areas or aptitudes that can develop through the levels. Again, in the Upper Left quadrant, these lines are capacities or “multiple intelligences” that human beings possess and can cultivate. Some of the most important lines include: cognitive, self-identity, morals, values, needs, interpersonal, somatic, and emotional. States refer simply to the temporary configuration or condition of a given phenomenon arising within the quadrants. With respect to the individual interior (UL), there are many kinds of states such as waking, dreaming, and deep sleep as well as meditative states, exogenous/drug-induced or altered states, and various peak-experiences. And finally, Types signify the style or horizontal mode that can be present in almost any temporary condition or permanent level of complexity, as they arise within the quadrants. To once more offer some examples from the individual interior quadrant (UL), the Enneagram, Myers-Briggs, and Masculine/Feminine types are some of the most commonly used psychological typologies of the personality style.