I guess it really doesn't matter what you call it, parts, conflicting values, multiple oppositional viewpoints. Whatever the words, in my mind - it still equals a less than optimally congruent state of affairs. And, I think it is very useful to have and to hold, till life do we part -- a variety of different ways of viewing, hearing and feeling any particular situation. Not only do I think it is a good idea that more is better when it comes to perceptions, I also think it lends to a rather useful notion we have come to know as wisdom.

Now, there are a variety of levels of conflict. Everything from which cereal do I buy, the Shredded Wheat or the Cheerios. Or on a more creative note, the person who says -- do I remain living or do I kill myself. And since you did ask, I ignore the conflict and go somewhere else. Let me explain.

I recently overheard a conversation where person one was telling person two that he needed new ways to handle life when he got stressed out. Person two did his best to help person one practice feeling stressed out. He did this by continuously having him step into the state of stress so that he could find new ways to handle that stress.

Sure I thought, that is one way to do it. And I can also remember thinking to myself, "What is wrong with this picture?" And the answer -- "Wrong logical level!" We need to (chunk up) back up here. Before the behavior, before the beliefs, the values - all the way to the foundational operating metaphor. This is where the changing of things will have the most generative evolutionary pervasive effect.

REMEDIAL VS GENERATIVE

OK, so there is a part of you that wants to do X, and a part that wants to do Y. Lets us open up a dialogue here that can lead toward integration, or in some cases an agreeable negotiated outcome where the two parts leave each other alone in certain contexts. And I agree this kind of metaphor can be very useful if one utilizes one's output channels in sync with their finely tuned sensory apparatus. The results can be astounding!

And although the methods used above produce results, those results are mostly remedial in nature. As the structure that led to the problem in the first place is still largely unchanged. It's akin to the notion of process vs. content therapy. When dealing with content alone there is a risk that the person will use the process that created the unwanted content to create more of the same. However, if you change the process, how they got there in the first place, the chances are in favor of the new set of choices.

Far too often there is a real lack of usefulness between what I see in people's behavior, beliefs, values, etc. and what those elements were so poorly designed to serve. It's kinda like a couple who are so busy in the heat of an argument, that when asked, they have completely forgotten what they were arguing about. The behavior winds up taking on a life of its own.

Now, when I say back up, or chunk up, I am thinking about what goes before. If we start here, we can build in a brand new foundational metaphor. One that is predisposed toward a purposeful congruence between all of the elements (Identity, values, beliefs, behaviors, etc.). The metaphor is one that is now naturally motivated toward congruence with all of the elements serving a personally satisfying end.

By building a cohesive metaphor that is founded in congruence, where the elements of that system are designed to move together, the notion of conflict becomes one that is useful. Conflict then becomes a motivating factor that uses the effect of temporary destabilization as a means of reorganization the system by incorporating new distinctions and choices.

You see, there is the notion of TOTE. Whereby one is making distinctions between a given result in relationship to a desired result. Yet, the frame in which TOTE is largely understood has to do with outcomes. You know that you want a particular outcome, you utilize a set of choices, you check to see if what you are doing is working, and you offer another set of choices. Hopefully you have built in a set of distinctions that say -- OK, got it -- time to exit.

The cohesive metaphor I am talking about here not only uses the TOTE model to offer recursive choices where any particular outcome is concerned, it is also designed to operate as a means of keeping alignment while moving in the directions that will lead toward personal individual satisfaction at the highest logical level - that of existence.

In this model there is very little concern for building behavior with any specificity. In fact, there is very little concern for the notion of behavior at all. Behavior becomes a tool that can be manipulated in any fashion whatsoever. There are no rules, so to speak, just absolute flexibility. The focus of ecology then becomes moot. As the system is designed to embrace wisdom by incorporating the notion of consequence, not on a per behavior basis, but from the point of view of the entire organism.

*name deleted*, instead of having your own understandings of what I am offering you here, have mine. Perhaps that would be asking too much. But in truth, for you to fully understand where I am coming from you may have to perceive what it is I perceive, I don't know. There are ways for you to be pretty darn close to being able gather my perceptions. Everything from deep trance identification, to those imaginary circles of excellence. If you were to make the necessary arrangements you could easily step into this. And I do know that your hallucinations would be better served if you had a sensory based model of how I do what I am offering you here. But you could always give it a try!

Sincerely,

Carmine Baffa