How Do We Know What We Know?
Is one way of knowing better than another? Do we know more than we think we know? Have we kept it to ourselves out of fear or self-preservation? Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer, Ph.D., a psychoanalyst and researcher, in her book Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind suggests that ”extraordinary knowing may not be so extraordinary after all, but part of ordinary knowing that we simply haven’t known how to account for. If it’s true, we might start inhabiting our world with a different, radically more hopeful outlook for the future.”
Join us for an exploration into Extraordinary Knowing or what we might also call Intuition. Michelle Dexter, Psy.D. and Sandy Brim, Ph.D., both psychologists, will present these ideas for us to both experience and discuss from an Integral lens.
While we will look briefly at different ways of knowing, we will focus on assessing ourselves for what might be our preferred method of using our Intuition among 4 types presented before breaking out into groups of 3 to have an experience using these types of Intuition.
How do these different types of knowing fit into the Integral model? Are they strictly State experiences open to all levels of development, or do later stages have more access to these states that may even be integrated into 2nd tier. If the goal of 2nd tier is to make the world a better place without prejudice, judgment, fear or even construct awareness and beyond, can we really not incorporate this into our personal journeys? Are these types of knowing pointing to more hope for our future as suggested by Dr. Mayer? Do the various Lines and Types have something to tell us about who has more access to these ways of knowing? Looking at all of this through the Quadrants may help address how difficult or scary this might be for some people who are more comfortable on the right side of the quadrant where science prevails and the research done on Extraordinary knowing is considered suspect and often discredited despite good research. The difficulty replicating these studies may be accounted for by experimenter bias or unknown emotional factors involved in these studies. We anticipate a lively discussion and creating a safe space for all to share previous experiences and new awarenesses.
In February, 2017 San Diego Integral began the Focused Integral Group Discussion (FIGD) which is a meta-structuring format where we briefly switch into an agreed upon process to optimally utilize the We-Space. The objective of FIGD is to collectively feel deeper into any topic and promote a causal state experience where we briefly switch from a collective I to a collective we. A Focused Integral Group process is “running in the background” until a salient moment rises that we want to explore. This may be derived from a presentation, a poignant comment by a member, a poem…whatever has resonance and can be horizontally expanded by the collective. This moment is identified by the “moderator” who helps maintain focus.
FIGD have three parts. It begins with a formal focus, followed by commentary on the process and then a discussion. Each segment lasts for 3-8 minutes. We have committed to a minimal of three FIGD per meeting. We have found that the intensity of these collective focused moments have increased with experience and skill and seem to delightfully persist throughout the three phases. This is very much an experimental process we have been Improving upon after each meeting.
As previously mentioned FIGD was initially described for the February, 2017. The sequential evolution of FIGD can be seen in the PAGES tab above. New or returning members are encouraged to read these brief papers in preparation for participation. Updates have followed each SDI meeting.
SDI is committed to the creative advance into novelty.
If you have a topic suggestion please let us know and we’ll bring it to the conversation.