This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Human Right to Belong? A Systemic integral approach to belonging contains elements to transform conscience into consciousness.
An integral worldview of “beyond belonging” is presently emerging within the fields of systemic therapy. It emerges as an equal and opposite response to man made social networks, norms and values that have defined the significance of boundaries of belonging since man first believed in god as father. That is, a god as father outside of the human self; a god as some omnipotent presence higher than being human, that reduces human dignity and divinity to that of a child. This alone has robbed humanity of responsibility, the ability to respond as an independent, integrated and whole adult. Instead god responded on the child’s behalf, and a consequence was that humans followed with a multiplicity of mostly covert, secret, hidden childish reactions and agendas. Modern day chaos and disorder is demanding that we now bear and carry the consequences of failing to act in accordance with our very own higher nature: not a nature borrowed from definitions of belonging. A new ability to respond is emerging out of that. It was O’Hara (2006) that commented, “We now have the kind of responsibility for the future of the planet that was once thought to belong to beings of a higher order- and thus it seems to me urgent that we consider what kind of education this unprecedented level of responsibility requires” (1.a.P. 111) That responsibility includes and transcends past perspectives that God is father. This inclusion however has no duty of care or loyalty to any distorted theology or image with an inherent man made fallacy rooted in its foundation. This inclusive responsibility carries and transfers sovereignty of people and their country worldwide. It does that above and beyond illusions of grandeur upholding conscience to govern belonging. This response-ability places orders of love and life first, and beings follow, to higher levels of consciousness, leaving conscience behind. SOVEREIGNITY Sovereignty is an interesting word. In this essay it refers to the autonomy, independence and absolute freedom of every human being to be master of their own fate or destiny: to not only belong to the universe but to belong to themselves. It is the manifest, unqualified, unmitigated and unconditional right to action that freedom in accordance with ones birthright. It heralds a dawn of self mastery. It holds the true seed of belonging that has been hidden in barren sterile land and forgotten for generations. Sovereignty governs a hidden dimension of existential morphogenesis (see footnote definition below) in action, affecting every cell of life every moment of
the day. This sovereign belonging seeds solidarity, trust, commitment and mutuality in the territory of life called nature, both inner and outer. It breeds tolerance and reciprocity and creates communities of meaning based upon truth and life’s organic harmony. This inner wealth of sovereign belonging however, has for thousands of years, been excluded and looked upon as an ideology which is out of order. Its essence has been dominated by another type of belonging; a man made definition of belonging concocted by conscience itself. This conscience manufactured mind itself and attempted to call it home. This home became the world in which we belong. It has been a safe and comfortable home for generations. However the significance of mental boundaries of belonging is fast losing solidarity in our present. Walls of belonging have cracks in them, and the aging stones of loyalty and agreement are beginning to crumble. The protected inner territories of man made excuses for perpetrating inequality in the name of belonging are now open territories. Open to the slow and steady infiltration of realization that man made belonging co-exists with inequality and exclusion. Belonging and exclusion are no longer symbiotic behind closed walls; as inclusion engages awareness of a growing majority of community. Sovereignty emerges out of that personal awareness, insight and intuition, and functions as a new centre of gravity within the collective conscience of guilt and innocence. It provides a new locus of control pivotal to transformative practice evolving towards higher states of consciousness. Higher states of consciousness that are dependent upon new transformative learning education. TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING EDUCATION
“Transformative learning is the kind of learning that shifts the definition or locus of the self, from content; i.e., having to have a position or a fixed point of view, to context; i.e., not having to have a position, - an ability to hold multiple points of view, having a systemic or integral worldview (1.b.Elias, 1997). Education that is transformative provides learning distinctions that shift who a learner considers themselves to ‘be’ from identifying one's self as a point of view, a story or history, a personality, an ego, or a body, to recognizing one's self as context - as an observer and participant, and a ‘clearing’ in which a different order of thought, feeling, conversation or action, etc. can take place. The individual’s capacities ‘reach beyond’ any narrowly personal and individual perspective (1.c.Wilber, 1998, p. 72).”
Paradigms of belonging up until now have had a basic intelligence that has been misused and misunderstood by masculine principles of survival in men and women. The locus of self has been preoccupied with content, having a fixed point of view. That fixed point of view has been systemically entwined with a deep will to survive and annihilate the other. In the name of serving survival, belonging has represented a gross displacement of the will to destroy. An example of this displacement was demonstrated in our very own constellation family in 2009, in a statement by 40 Jews that went world wide. (See footnotes below to original statement and my reply.) “Annihilation, by definition, is the complete eradication of something or someone. As a rule, the goal is not just to kill others; and fight means, attempting to annihilate; it is also in any possible way, to upsurp the place of those others and take what belongs to them – physically or spiritually, their goods, their homes, their land, their skills, their cultures, the totality of their lives. 2
Yes, this is also in the service of survival, to kill and take what belongs to others. It appears we shun cannibalism, but this is a thin veneer. For there are many situations in which human beings safeguard their survival at other people’s cost, even at the cost of their lives. Often absorbing what we just destroyed is necessary to our own survival. We may get our nourishment from what nature gives to us, like fruit and nuts, but for meat, fish, and even vegetables we have to kill before we can take it. Are all life-and death- conflicts inhumane? When we are in dire need, we cannot escape them. Large scale conflicts only serve survival on the one hand; on the other hand they endanger survival.” (2.Hellinger, 2008 p. 182) Humanity is now is dire need. Belonging now hurts enough to expose the deeper fundamental layers of investment in power politics and greed that has motivated the human psyches search for belonging. Superiority and inferiority no longer feel comfortable, justified or even relevant to many who are experiencing a panoramic view of histories events over generations. Looking through an existential integral lens, wars are now being seen as little more than wars between different levels of development in human consciousness. Collective conscious vision is now looking at evolution of events and beginning to measure and identify merging perspectives embedded in and emerging out of human culture. That looking is powerful, open, absorbing and transformative. That looking is all that is needed to reorientate, redirect, restructure and reform an ancient battleground of belonging clinging to remnants of survival psyche. In that look the observer is able to become one with the observed. Is this how we absorb “what we just destroyed, that is necessary to our own survival?” If we look we are able to see that there has also been a war between belonging and beyond belonging for thousands of years. Repeated patterns of dominion and domination of tribal, mystical and archaic cultures V’s industrial, technical and pluralistic cultures, have contributed to present day levels of multiple intelligences beginning to co-exist in a life friendly biosphere. For many it is no longer about “Despair V’s Integrity” but Despair AND integrity (Erikson.) In the same way it is no longer about belonging V’s beyond belonging, it is about belonging AND nonbelonging. It is about respect for the living organic complementariness of different levels and layers of human psyche and the inherent emergent properties of those levels. It is the recognition that each of these levels and systems are interdependent, collative and cumulative and affecting each other. Systemic understanding and intervention needs a new way to bond and balance relationships beyond belonging. Past identification of belonging to father above, has uprooted and disconnected humanity from roots into earth, mother country and life itself. It seems ridiculous to say that a new way for people to move beyond belonging would be to connect to the physical aspects of their very own body, mind and spirit, and the matter that surrounds them; and yet it is true. Belonging for and belonging to, something outside the physical self first, renounces the physical realm of being human and attempts to push that reality into a second position. Our man made ideas of belonging are out of order. They were politically engineered to gain mental satisfaction, emotional and spiritual profit at the cost of life itself. We have however
discovered in the journey of belonging that we have no way of being able to ensure profit any longer. Our earth, country and physical surroundings scream their losses into our ears as we are tossed around in a self made ocean of false prophet and profit. BELONGING SERVING LIFE OR DEATH? Belonging has missed awareness of its very own interiority. Belonging simply to have power over another, to survive, has not created a conscious being yet. It has failed to recognise that spirituality is not separate; that every eco system of life from the tiniest atom or cell is neither above nor below another. In nature each organism or system affects the other in a totally organic way, in a very life friendly way. Belonging to date has not been life friendly; it has not allowed itself to become a vehicle for higher transpersonal realms of reality. It remains embedded in, and distracted by, personal and collective good conscience. Man made belonging is an outgrowth of a good conscience. It is horizontal, lateral and linear. Sovereign belonging, on the other hand is not an outgrowth, it is an “upgrowth”, and it is vertical. It is a transcendence of conscience itself, not an extension of conscience. It is a mirror image of man made belonging, it is the opposite. It is helpful to reflect upon the nature of sovereign belonging’s service. It too has a will to survive. This will to survive serves the will to destroy. Is this in a right order for love to move forward and for life to thrive? Does order of service matter? Let me put it more clearly. MANMADE BELONGING = will to destroy (DEATH) serves will to survive (LIFE.) “Life is the nourishment that this God feeds on through human sacrifices. These sacrifices, huge numbers of human beings thrown into utmost suffering, are needed to keep this god in an exalted position among his followers and to guarantee his dominion over them.” (2.a.Hellinger P 186.) SOVEREIGN BELONGING = will to survive (LIFE) serves will to destroy(DEATH) “Life is an adventure. Life is a constant enquiry. Life is not a belief but a deep exploration of truth. And life knows no confinement, no limitation. It constantly goes on beyond. It breaks all the boundaries and all the limitations.” (Osho 1) Perhaps order is life serving death and disorder or chaos is death serving life. Has our past lived a loyal and “"longer allegiance to the dead than to the living"? (Robert Graves.) Perhaps our only contribution to the creative future is in the hands of not life and death itself, but the human SERVICE, HONOUR and the ORDER involved in these existential movements. Perhaps that’s where consciousness moves, right in the gap, in the middle of life and death? Are service, honouring and adhering to order our only ways of being absorbed into higher levels of consciousness? Most of us, as family constellation workers take pride in the fact that we serve life. How many acknowledge, honour and respect that in this, we also serve death? Man made belonging although unconsciously in service of death for thousands of years, has simultaneously and unconsciously continued to dishonour it, by excluding
consequences, and displacing the integrity inherent in systemic transformation and death process. Personal and collective conscience governing belonging, has bound every human action to survive or destroy, to guilt and innocence. What would happen if we renounced belonging to personal and collective conscience? Is that even possible? What exactly is conscience? Is there a higher level of conscience governing a higher level of belonging that allows love to move forward? Perhaps that means to be in unison: “to be in unison means to be in resonance with many, and ultimately, with everyone, and therefore, no one’s enemy.” (2. b.Hellinger P. 189.) However can being no one’s enemy include life serving destruction or death? Do we have to become skilful at being able to destroy in order to create? Is this the true self-mastery of sovereignty? Even to suggest this resounds loudly up against the hypocrisy of ancient christian idealism and western fundamentalism. Let it resound loudly, so loud that its vibration of fact and truth is able to help the walls of exclusive man made belonging to disintegrate. Let the sound of YES life can serve death; and YES life can positively destroy in order to recreate, be heard. This too is in service of life. Can we allow this insight to be fully realized and actioned in our present? How do we do that? What are the orders and boundaries, laws, keys and maps that transformation needs to follow in relation to this? These are some of the issues that will be explored in part two of this series examining the movement from conscience to consciousness and belonging to non belonging. One thing we can do starting from right now is to practice upholding a creative image of positive anticipation. When we look at each other we look to the beyond. We not only look at the person but we look at their family, their country their culture and their long line of ancestors. We engage a wide and loving look that includes them all into our heart. We do not lose sight, of all that this look encompasses, and all that it serves. In doing so, we look beyond belonging; beyond ourselves to something greater that guides us. We allow fate to unfold, to flower. In this the observer and the observed become one. “BEYOND Just to visualize the beyond is enough because in visualizing it you become it. So whenever you have time sit silently, go beyond words, beyond mind, beyond body, beyond the world of objects. Leave everything behind. Go on moving till you can find a place, a space where only your consciousness exists and there is nothing to be conscious about; where there is no content but your consciousness, a mirror mirroring nothing. That is our real home.” (Osho – 2) “Jesus described this way for us: ‘be merciful like my father in heaven. He let’s the sun shine above the good and the bad, and he lets the rain come down on the just and the unjust.’ This love for all as they are is the great love, the love that is beyond the reach of good and bad, and beyond the concept of large-scale conflict.”(2.c. Hellinger P189.)
1. Systemic, Integral Education: Transformative Education
By Anne Adams, Ph.D.
.1.a. O’Hara, M. (2006). In search of the next enlightenment? The challenge of education in uncertain times, Journal of Transformative Education, (4) 2, 105-117. 1.b. Elias, D. G. (1997). It’s time to change our minds. Revision, 20, 2-6 1.c. Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul. New York: Random House
2. a,b,c: Hellinger Bert (2008) Rising In Love. Hellinger Publications Berchtesgaden Germany 3. Osho – 1, Just Around The Corner
4. Osho - Even Bein’ Gawd Ain’t A Bed Of Roses 5. Graves Robert. The Greek Myths: 2 (London: Penguin, 1960).p. 380 FOOTNOTE Morphogenesis– definition of: taken from The Free dictionary by Farlex. Differentiation and growth of the structure of an organism (or a part of an organism) Organism, being – a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. Growing, growth, ontogenesis, ontogeny, maturation, development – (biology) the process of an individual organism growing organically; a purely biological unfolding.
Statement of Jewish Systemic Constellation Facilitators - Feb. 2009 http://www.jcfstatement.com/english.htm Reply to Statement – Sadhana Kay Needham 18th Feb. 2010 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hellinger_Controversies/message/5
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.