Book Club: Angel Tech

[LMNO]

This is one of the reasons I like my kindle.  you can highlight sections, and then type in marginalia, and then recall the notes at a touch of a button It's a lot easier for me than scribbling incomprehensible notes in the margin, and then frantically leafing through the pages when I'm looking for a quote.

[Bu🤠ns]

The crack about finding a professional who isn't fat I think refers to a person who is actualized in the First Gear rather than someone who is not.  I *think* there was a bit in there about how fat people are less actualized in this gear due to the oral fixation or excessive eating due to survival/security issues.

I realize that there are overlooked assumptions in this (i.e. thyroid problems, etc) but that's my take on it.

[Kai]

The crack about finding a professional who isn't fat I think refers to a person who is actualized in the First Gear rather than someone who is not.  I *think* there was a bit in there about how fat people are less actualized in this gear due to the oral fixation or excessive eating due to survival/security issues.

I realize that there are overlooked assumptions in this (i.e. thyroid problems, etc) but that's my take on it.

I think it has more to do with someone who won't sit on you too heavy.

[Bu🤠ns]

The crack about finding a professional who isn't fat I think refers to a person who is actualized in the First Gear rather than someone who is not.  I *think* there was a bit in there about how fat people are less actualized in this gear due to the oral fixation or excessive eating due to survival/security issues.

I realize that there are overlooked assumptions in this (i.e. thyroid problems, etc) but that's my take on it.

I think it has more to do with someone who won't sit on you too heavy.

I'll buy that 

[LMNO]

"Emotional Gear Two concerns itself with stabilizing ego-strength through Personal Freedom, Status, and Political Awareness.  Its basic driving force is territorial in that it defines emotions as territorial signals: Emotions get excited whenever ones sense of self, or territory, is diminished and/or augmented."  Time for the Monkey Dance!  In my mind, this seems to be one of the major circuits our current society is living in.  We've got a big problem on C4, for certain, but the xenophobia and neophobia seem to be where it all comes out to play.

I noticed a potential contradiction when he says, "The more selfish our motives, the more we shut ourselves off from the wholeness of life..." because a few pages back, he warns of being too inclusive of other people when making statements about ourselves.  I suppose it is part of a balancing act, to be personally present but to also recognize the Other. No real point here, I guess.  Just thinking out loud.

"Our personal freedom is sometimes defined by the manner in which we respond to invasion, violation and emotional challenge.  It takes a certain power to express ourselves in the midst of adversity."  As someone who typically keeps his head down and 'goes with the flow' (but often simply disregards the social game rules and follows his own), I realize that sometimes, you do have to stand up and be present, and say "no" out loud.  If the C1 needs to be safe, sometimes that means that C2 has to carve out a space in the social hierarchy. We can't just play C3 and C4 games, rationalizing and game changing all the time; we have to assert our place in a group. 

"Victims do not exist unless we have defined one or two other role players: 'saviors' and /or 'persecutors,' both of whom need victims to stay alive,  This holy trinity of emotional game playing can be creatively destroyed by simply choosing to save ourselves and/or providing our own punishment by playing the game intentionally.  Emotions can be expressed in a playful spirit by remembering, it's just a game."  Yeah, I suppose.  But if the saviors/persecutors see you're taking it lightly/not seriously, then you get meta-persecution because they'll see it as you mocking them.  This is an important concern if you actually care about the people who don't realize they're playing the role of savior/persecutor.  You can't just say "fuck it" and disregard them.  It takes everyone involved to be playing the game intentionally for this to work... 

"Personal freedom gives the necessary Permission to act outside of the socially accepted norms and standards of behaving."  But what about working with others inside the system?  I know C2 is about the sense of self, and how you relate with others, and this line is about escaping social constraints, but after you rebel, you eventually have to go back and interact with others again.  Then again, once you've broken away from the pack, you have the knowledge that it's possible, which gives you the flexibility to behave as you choose, and not because it's what is expected.

The next bit talks about competition, and how to deal with other people when you disagree, and how to generate "win/win" scenarios.  I'm not terribly convinced by it, though.  He first states that "There is an area in every emotional situation that expresses 'the mutual'," and that "whatever is not mutual is released... This means that whenever people want different things, they agree to just drop them in favor of whatever remains mutual to all concerned."  Even in the most general of situations, I can't see this working for me.  It would end up with me "releasing" just about everything I want to accomplish.  Maybe that's the point, but wouldn't it be easier for him to say, "Tell everyone to fuck off, and go you own way"?

Next, he goes into Politics, also known as "power struggles".  He starts out pretty spot-on: "When we are unsure of our boundaries (how far we can tread around others without stepping on them and vice-versa), insecurity is the norm."  This makes sense to anyone who has been in a relationship with what's typically known as a "psycho":  They have radically different responses to identical behaviors/actions, and you're never sure how to act around them... Your own behavior is compromised due to uncertainty.

"Our alternative [to 'one up, one down' oppression status games] is finding the point of mutual autonomy between ourselves... where people are allowed the personal freedom of being themselves."  Well, sure.  When all involved know what's going on.  I suppose my objections here are that you have to live in a world with people who either don't know, don't care, or disagree with the 8C model.  So, in order for this model to be effective, it has to function independently of other people.  You need strategies and tricks to beat the 'one up/one down' games without the other person knowing or agreeing with what you're doing.  It's not manipulation, per se, it's being able to express your 2C strength without having to explain or convince others to play along. 

Third Circuit coming up next.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This is really good commentary LMNO... The only comment I have is that in my reading of the book, it generally seems that AA talks within the context of the circuit being discussed. So for example, his concept of "Whatever is not mutual is released" generally deals (IMO) specifically with issues categorized as "Second Circuit" or "Territorial". So it is useful within the context of that circuit, but not as useful, say in the 3rd or 4th circuit. So rather than releasing everything you want to accomplish (probably a lot of which are 3rd and 4th circuit topics), I think it may be in emotional-territorial/hierarchical situations where mutualism comes strongly into play.

The same for being selfish verses inclusive. For Bio-Survival selfish is necessary because it deals almost entirely with Self. For the second circuit though, mutualism and inclusion are necessary because your now interacting with people.

One of AA's paratheatrical performances emphasizes this by having each actor play one of the circuits. They became identifiable by the way they interacted with others, or failed to interact with others. They weren't a congruous group, but very different... based on the circuit.

I also liked a discussion of the circuits by talking about when that 'circuit' "developed in evolution". Its still metaphor, obviously, but it kinda helped me to see the First Circuit as a Crocodile, Second circuit as a Dog, Third Circuit as a early human, just figuring out communication etc.

Ok, tjhats my only comment... this stuff is an excellent read

[LMNO]

Yeah, I understand that you need to take the Gear out of context, and that by itself it can read as if that Gear is totally out of control... You need to integrate them all.

One thing he touched on that I think needs more thought is that these gears don't necessarily develop in a linear style, or even process information from an 1C -> 2C -> 3C way.  4C indoctrination often comes way before 3C is even fully established, and so on.  Some people may even open up 5C before 4C settles down.  But since writing is linear, we must explore these in a linear manner.  It's amusing that in order to explain all these Gears, he has to go full-blown 3C.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah, I understand that you need to take the Gear out of context, and that by itself it can read as if that Gear is totally out of control... You need to integrate them all.

One thing he touched on that I think needs more thought is that these gears don't necessarily develop in a linear style, or even process information from an 1C -> 2C -> 3C way.  4C indoctrination often comes way before 3C is even fully established, and so on.  Some people may even open up 5C before 4C settles down.  But since writing is linear, we must explore these in a linear manner.  It's amusing that in order to explain all these Gears, he has to go full-blown 3C.

The linear labels are definitely easy to create confusion. I wish Leary would have stayed with terms like "Emotional-Territorial" rather than Second Circuit... but the crazy hippie liked the Octave concept.

[Bu🤠ns]

Oh that's cool.  I haven't really considered them non-linearly before..that's kind of interesting.

[LMNO]

"Third Gear Conceptual Survival activates... concepts our mind uses to define what is real. Symbolic research includes the skills of Problem Solving, Map-Making, Articulation and the Power of Naming."  This right here is my main Gear.  Because of that, I tend to give it more importance when I talk about the 8C model.  So, fair warning: I'm biased like that.

One point where A.A. and I differ is the role and importance of the Pattern Maker.  That's right, the Law of Fives.  A.A. Seems to hold that there is still a higher order amid the chaos:  "'The apparent randomness by which Universe reveals itself is but a signal from a still higher sense of intrinsic order.' -An Ancient Confusionist Proverb".    He's right that 3C will find order inside chaos much more easily if you just relax and let it ride, but he seems to miss the point that the pattern itself has a good chance of being just as meaningless as the chaos.

There's also an emphasis on dream analysis, something I haven't put much stock in... However, there is a good line in among this: "Whosoever understands metaphor governs the mind."  That ties in with a lot of the "Map/Territory" stuff.  "Once you recognize the difference between the map and the territory... then it is possible to increase your Conceptual Intelligence by being aware of your thoughts as... thoughts."  So, I guess he does obliquely say that all the patterns you make are only maps.

In fact, he builds quite a bit off of the unspoken premise.  "The amazing thing about knowing how you think, talk and write [being aware of your map-making process] is this: You change reality by adjusting the way you think, talk and write about it.  The illusion is that reality changes.  The reality is that only your maps do."

But then he backtracks again.  "This symbolic skill of translating signals into useful information emerges as we come to think of ourselves more as interpreters, rather than "creators". Ourinterpretativeabilityisonlypreciseas [ha, ha] our definition of what is "meaningful..."  But since we constantly make patterns, our idea of "meaningful" might be completely divorced from what's really going on out there... as shown by Starbuck's Pebbles, which is on the very next page.

At this point, I'm starting to think that this whole chapter is teaching by example, because he starts making really good points about Maybe Logic.  "To enhance the elasticity of your thinking, refrain from thinking in black and white... Our thinking is only as flexible as our minds are open to incorporating the Unknown as a value."  I mean, he calls it "Factor X" which, IMO, is kind of stupid, but that doesn't make it less right.  "Factor X makes it possible for new information, not necessarily in agreement with previous concepts and beliefs, to be received and reviewed."  And then he puts his finger on the heart of the problem: "Once we are 'in the know' about something or someone, we suffer the misconception of thinking there is nothing left to learn."

Often, people say that to explain things, to be "too intellectual" about something, kills the idea.  A.A. cleverly gets around that, through "Evocation" and "Explanation": "To explain is to answer the WHY question. To evoke is to think, write or speak in such a manner as to trigger the experience of the energy or process in question. Where explaining might kill the spirit invoked in an attempt to comprehend, evocation conjures the very spirit forth to be moved by it."  So, while you can kill a joke by explaining it, you can also keep the joke going by evoking it.

He ends the chapter with "Too New Intelligence Tests" which are slightly too new-age for me, although the "six levels of intelligence" is interesting, and could be useful if we could take out the pre-existing judgmental qualities.  The second test just underscores his Annoyingly Optimistic trip:  If you're generally happy, you're smarter; if you're generally unhappy, you're stupider.  Whatever.

Fourth Gear on Monday, kids.

[Kai]

Lovin it, LMNO.

I'm interested to see how you handle the karma mechanics sections that come next. For me, they were the most important part of the book (besides the excitement and resistance part). Especially 2nd circuit.

[LMNO]

One thing I wish he would say more clearly is, "It's a good thing to keep making as many maps as possible, and as quickly as possible, but remember that most of those maps are probably complete bullshit."

[Kai]

One thing I wish he would say more clearly is, "It's a good thing to keep making as many maps as possible, and as quickly as possible, but remember that most of those maps are probably complete bullshit."

But also useful bullshit.

Some people think its weird when I can hold two different views of reality in rapid succession without cognitive dissonance. Pretty easy when you recognize the usefulness of map switching for each situation. I'm still no good at talking with evangelical Christians though. That particular map just feels dirty in many ways.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

One thing I wish he would say more clearly is, "It's a good thing to keep making as many maps as possible, and as quickly as possible, but remember that most of those maps are probably complete bullshit."

... in some sense.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Hm. I am beginning to wonder if it will be more efficent to read the book, or to read LMNO's commentary and everyone else's reactions to it. It seems like the meat of the book has been summarized, with minimal anti-wording rage.