How you make sense of your world…more secrets of living, part 3
by Bill HarrisJanuary 2nd, 2008
This is the third post in a series about cognitive development based primarily on the work of the legendary Jean Piaget, but also drawing on other developmental theorists.
First, before we jump into this, why should you care about human development? How will knowing this benefit you?
First, cognitive development underlies development in nearly every other area of your life. And, since where you are in the developmental process has a huge affect on the way you make sense of the world, and to a great degree determines your ability to successfully navigate your life, understanding development can greatly help you take charge of your life. If for some reason you aren’t creating what you want in life — enough money, enough friends, enough peace of mind, enough fulfillment — it’s very likely that where you are developmentally has something to do with it.
So far we’ve looked at Piaget’s first three levels, sensorimotor, preoperational, and concrete operational. In this post we’ll look at Piaget’s highest level, formal operational. Then, we’ll move on to higher levels as identified by other researchers.
You might want to read parts one and two first in order to better understand the information in this post.
So, we’ve followed the development of cognitive abilities from the sensorimotor stage, where the world is understood entirely through the senses and through motor functions (without any real emotional involvement or mental involvement); to the preoperational stage, where the child learns to understand the world through a rudimentary use of symbols and concepts; to the concrete operational stage, where the child applies symbols, concepts, and mental rules to concrete (but not abstract) operations in the world.
For most people, development stops at the concrete operational stage. A few, however, develop further, to Piaget’s highest stage, formal operational. (And, an even smaller number continue to stages beyond that, which we will visit in a later post.)
Up through concrete operational, the person has used concepts, symbols, and mental rules to operate on concrete things and events. Concrete operational is the stage at which we learn to get around in the world by learning through experience how cause and effect works in the world. At formal operational, the child learns to apply his logical abilities to abstract ideas, which opens up a new and much wider perspective on life, and a large number of new life skills.
One of the big differences between concrete operational (conop) and formal operational (formop) is the ability to perform cognitive operations on hypothetical situations. If a mother says to a concrete operational child, “Don’t make fun of that man with a big nose. How would you feel if someone made fun of your nose?” the child may respond, “But I don’t have a big nose!” In a concrete sense, the child doesn’t have a big nose, and therefore cannot put himself in the place of the other person. Doing so is too abstract for the child. It asks him to use ”as if” thinking, and to put himself in the role of another. The task is abstract rather than concrete.
Here is another situation requiring formal operational thinking: ”If Tom is taller than Sam, and Tom is also shorter than Mike, who is tallest?” To figure out the answer, you have to be able to imagine the situation — it isn’t concrete, but rather hypothetical.
In the first of my three online Life Principles Integration Process courses, I introduce the idea that what you believe tends to come true in reality — what psychologists call a self-fulfilling prophecy. I ask students to examine their beliefs and find those that aren’t working, those that are generating outcomes they don’t want. (Notice that believing is concrete operational — it is based on evidence from experiences in the concrete, real world — while thinking about believing is formal operational — it’s a type of thinking about thinking, an operation performed on thinking.)
Once a person identifies a belief that is generating negative results, I ask them to determine what belief, if they adopted it and believed it, would generate the outcome they want. (For instance, someone who believes “I’ll never make any money,” generally figures out a way to make that belief come true. If, on the other hand, they believed, “If I do what those who make money do, I’ll make money, too,” they’ll figure out how to make that belief come true, i.e., they will make money.)
I then ask the student to adopt this new belief — even though they have no real-world evidence that it is true (yet). A concrete operational person believes something because they have concrete evidence for it. They’ve had actual experiences that tell them that what they believe is “true.” Now, I’m asking them to 1) imagine what belief would generate a better result, and 2) believe “as if” that new belief is true, to imagine that it is true — without any concrete evidence (they have to either imagine the evidence, or notice that other people have created evidence, which makes such a belief possible).
I’ve noticed that while a lot of students can do this, some students have trouble. This is a sign that they have not fully mastered concrete operational thinking (if that had, their beliefs would be more functional), and are therefore not quite ready to move into formal operational thinking.
Needing concrete evidence in order to believe something is concrete operational thinking. Being able to imagine what it would be like to believe in some other way is formal operational. The visionaries of the world use formal operational thinking (and, very likely, cognitive strategies beyond formal operational, which we will look at in another post). If you call concrete operational “thinking,” then formal operational could be termed “thinking about thinking.” Where concrete operational thinking might be described as learning the rules for how to do things, formal operations involves looking at how rules are generated, noticing patterns, and so forth — in other words, operating on rules and other ways of thinking, rather than operating merely on concrete things and situations.
In formal operational thinking, we’ve stepped back a step to observe the thinking process from the outside. The concrete operational person is immersed in their mental processes — they are their mental processes. The formal operational person has begun the process of having these mental processes instead of just being them.
Formal operational thinking — the ability to think about the thinking process — allows a person to investigate a problem in a systematic manner. Let’s say you wanted to determine the rules for making a pendulum swing at a certain speed. To systematically figure this out, you might try various combinations: a long string with a light weight, a long string with a heavy weight, a short string with a light weight, and a short string with a heavy weight.
Though the actual experiment is very concrete, the conception of it isn’t. The formal operational person will imagine the possibilities before they begin. They have the cognitive ability to imagine them all, hold them in awareness, and compare them. The concrete operational person will randomly try different possibilities and eventually will learn how a pendulum works. The formal operational thinker, however, will create a systematic plan prior to the actual experiment — allowing her to cut right to the chase. In many cases, the formal operational person will not only cognize the possibilities and the method of testing them, but also be able to imagine (based on information they have learned during the concrete operational stage) the actual result — before even doing the experiment.
At a more technical level, cognitive psychologists have identified eight different cognitive skills used to solve this problem (though you don’t need to know that these categories exist to use them). The first four have to do with the ability to group possibilities in four different ways:
1) Conjunction: “It’s possible that both A and B make a difference.” This expresses the possibility that the length of the string and the weight of the pendulum both make a difference.
2) Disjunction: “It’s possible that it’s either this or that.” Another possibility is that it might be either the length or the weight.
3) Implication: “It’s possible that if it’s this, then that will happen.” This is the formation of hypothesis by noticing any possible if/then causative connection.
4) Incompatibility: “It’s possible that when this happens, that doesn’t.” This is the converse of implication (#3 above), and is a way to eliminate (disprove) a hypothesis.
The second four are called “operating on operations” — what I meant above by “thinking about thinking.” The concrete operational thinker has learned to use various cognitive operations in order to make things happen in the world. The formal operational thinker can think about these operations and see (and use) patterns and principles.
If for instance your hypothesis is that it could be the string, or the weight, there are four operations you could use to test it:
1) Identity: “It could be the string or the weight.”
2) Negation: “It might not be the string and it might not be the weight.” (Negate each component and replace “or” with “and.”)
3) Reciprocity: “It could either not be the weight or not be the string.” (Negate the components but keep the and’s and or’s.)
4) Correlativity: “It’s the weight and the string.” (Keep the components as they are, but replace or’s with and’s.)
If you are a reasonably good formal operational thinker, you probably use the above in your thinking, even if you’ve never heard of, or even thought about, these categories. But you can probably see why not everyone develops this type of cognitive ability — it can be complicated. The more difficult questions on IQ tests can only be answered using formal operational thinking, for instance. Formal operational thinking allows one to think logically and abstractly, to use imaginative “as if” thinking, to “think about thinking,” to understand shades of gray, and, additionally, to understand abstract concepts such as love, integrity, or freedom.
Only about 30% of adults develop formal operational cognitive abilities.
Part of the shift to formal operational thinking involves a significant identity change: a mature ego begins to emerge. German philosopher and sociologist Jergen Habermas spoke of the transition from concrete operational to formal operational as a transformation from a role identity to an ego identity.
A role identity (the type of identity of a person at the concrete operational stage) is defined by one’s place and function in the group. An ego identity, on the other hand — contrary to the common use of the term as a type of selfishness — is defined by a wider perspective that, among other things, considers what would be fair for all people, not just one’s group. This more world centric perspective is possible because one has, for the first time, a true independent identity, based on a more expanded ability to take the role of other. When Piaget speaks of his earlier stages as being egocentric, he doesn’t mean that a clearly differentiated self or ego exists. He means just the opposite — that the self is not differentiated from the world, or even from the group.
It’s only at the formal operational level that a true, integrated self emerges from it’s immersion (in the sensorimotor stage) in the total environment, then (in the late sensorimotor and early preoperational stage) in bodily impulses, then (in late preoperational) in emotions, and finally (in concrete operational) in social roles. Counterintuitively, then, the development of a strong ego is actually a move away from egocentricity.
In the sensorimotor and preoperational stages the child does not have a strong or separate ego. The child assumes that the world feels whatever he feels and wants whatever he wants. He cannot clearly separate self and other and, as a result, treats others as extensions of himself (which leads to magical thinking — if something is an extension of me, I can magically affect it, or some powerful other can affect it for me). Later, at the concrete operational stage, the child cannot separate herself from the view of her group — the group’s mythology or world view. At formal operational, however, a true, independent self — a differentiated ego — emerges.
Let’s take a quick detour, then, and look at the concept of the ego (for which I will rely heavily upon the remarks of Ken Wilber). The ego is the bad guy in mystical, New Age circles, but what New Agers mean by “ego” is a bit fuzzy. Most postmodern New Agers take it to mean the sense of being a separate self, a self isolated from others and from Spirit — a not unreasonable definition.
But since ego is the bad guy, New Age thinking often equates everything that is non-rational, every perspective not associated with ego, as being good. In doing so, they make no distinction between narcissistic, pre-egoic states, where a true ego is as yet undeveloped, and trans-egoic states, where the ego has been transcended (an ego is available to be used as a tool but the self is no longer identified as it — we’ll get to this in a later post).
As opposed to the New Age definition of ego, academic psychoanalytic circles often define ego as the process of organizing the psyche, often referring to this organizing principle as the self, that which gives unity to the mind. Many of these theorists don’t relate to the idea of going beyond the ego — or get why anyone would even want to.
Finally, in contemporary philosophy, a distinction is made between what could be called the empirical ego, the self that can be an object of awareness, and the Pure Ego or transcendental ego, that aspect of us that is pure subjectivity and therefore can never be seen or experienced as an object. This is what I (and others) have often referred to as the witness, and what the Hindus call Atman, the pure witness that itself can never be witnessed. This definition of ego confuses New Agers, because it equates the “bad” ego with Spirit.
When Piaget speaks of his earlier stages as being egocentric, he doesn’t mean that there is a clearly differentiated ego or self, able to distinguish itself from the world. In fact, he means the opposite — that the self is not differentiated from the world, that there is no strong ego. This is why the person at these early stages treats the world as an extension of the self. Only when a true, differentiated ego emerges (at formal operational) does egocentrism diminish.
Until that point, the self is immersed in bodily impulses (sensorimotor and preoperational) and pre-given social roles (concrete operational). Finally, however, at the formal operational stage, a fully separate and fully individuated sense of self emerges. This emerging ego begins to form during concrete operational, as a persona or role, and then more fully develops during the formal operational stage. Further development (past formal operational) continues into the more spiritual (transegoic) realms — something I will discuss in another post.
Pre-egoic (i.e., sensorimotor and preoperational), egoic (concrete operational and formal operational), and transegoic (beyond formal operational) stages could also be described as being subconscious, self-conscious, and superconscious, respectively; or as prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal; or as prerational, rational, and transrational. And, you could also equate these stages with egocentrism, ethnocentrism (or group-centrism), and worldcentrism.
I mentioned decentering earlier as a new and significant ability of the formal operational person, where there is an ability to hold in awareness more than one type of relationship or one way of categorizing things or situations. Decentering could be thought of as an increased ability to take and hold in awareness multiple perspectives — a hallmark of world-centrism.
In this progression, each stage transcends the stage before it, becoming less egocentric. In each case, the new perspective is wider. Cognitively, the person is increasingly able to see (and take) progressively larger perspectives. Ultimately this will culminate in an ability to see one’s self as the entire going on of it all (as Spirit, or the Divine).
Formal operational thinking and awareness, then, transcends but also includes concrete operational thinking and awareness. As such, it can operate upon the skills and perspectives of the concrete operational stage. What the child was immersed in during concrete operational (what was subject) can now be observed, as an object — and therefore manipulated and operated upon. While concrete operational uses rules of thought to operate upon the concrete world, formal operational operates upon the rules themselves.
The ability to do this opens one to a new world — the world of possibilities. This is why the adolescent, as he develops formal operational abilities, enters into a world of new feelings, new dreams, new possibilities, new idealistic strivings. Reason (the main tool of formal operations) is the main driving force for this new space of possibilities. While the concrete operational child can operate on the concrete world, he is still tied to the obvious and the given. The formal operational adolescent, however, can mentally see new and different arrangements and possibilities.
A classic experiment from Piaget illustrates this. Piaget presented a child with five glasses of colorless liquids, three of which, when mixed, will produce a yellow liquid, and asked the child to combine the liquids to produce such a liquid.
Each stage approaches the problem in a different way. The preop child randomly mixes a few different liquids, and then gives up. If he stumbles upon the correct combination, he assigns his success to magic: “The sun made it happen,” or, “I wished that it would happen.” The conop child begins combining the liquids, three at a time, concretely mixing until he finds the right three to produce a yellow color.
But the formop adolescent begins by announcing that all possible combinations of three liquids must be tried. In other words, he has a mental plan (a formal operation) that allows him to see, in his mind’s eye, that all possible combinations must be tried. This is a type of relational awareness, where all possibilities are mentally held in awareness — something entirely new.
This isn’t a magical view of how things relate, as in preoperational thinking, or a randomized but concrete way of seeing how things relate, as in concrete operational thinking, but rather a new type of thinking in which both discrete differences and interactive relationships are perceived and taken into consideration.
The preop child, and to a lesser extent the conop child, thinks that yellow is a property of the liquids. The formop adolescent, however, understands that the yellow color is created by a relationship between the various liquids. This ability to see relationship between items is a new and significant skill. At concrete operational, the concrete items are what is important. At formal operational, while the items themselves are still important, what is most important are the relationships between the items.
Wilber points out three important qualities of formal operational. It is the first stage that is ecological, in the sense that it can see and hold in awareness the possible consequences of the relationships involved in a situation. Second, formal operational involves an understanding of relativity. In being able to hold in mind different perspectives, it sees in what way they operate relative to each other. (In one experiment Piaget allowed a snail to move along a board while at the same time the board is moved along a table. Only those at formal operational could understand the distance the snail travels relative to both the board and the table. The formal operational thinker understands that the time something takes, or the distance it travels, must be measured relative to some arbitrary point.)
Finally, formal operational thinking is non-anthropocentric (it doesn’t interpret the world solely in terms of human values and experiences). Formop sees a bigger picture, a larger perspective, in which humans are a part of a larger whole that includes the entire planet and other living things.
In a similar way, rules and societal norms are reflected upon and evaluated by reference to universal principles that transcend those of any particular culture or group. “My country right or wrong” becomes “Is my country actually right?” Concrete rules such as the Ten Commandments are supplanted by more universal principles such as justice, mercy, compassion, respect for all individuals, human rights — and the connection between rights and responsibilities.
During this developmental process we’ve seen morality move from a preconventional, narcissistic perspective, centered around the child’s body-centered feelings and impulses; to a conventional, ethnocentric, group-centric perspective centered around one’s tribe, society, race, or social group; to a postconventional or worldcentric perspective, oriented to ”all of us.”
At formal operational, one’s role no longer determines one’s identity. Though still influenced by society, identity at the formal operational stage is individually determined. The question of “who am I?” must, for the first time, be answered not by society but by the individual. Until this point true self-esteem does not exist, because prior to this stage one’s esteem is defined by the group. Now, for the first time — with the arising of a separate, individuated self — self-esteem is possible.
In terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, one has moved from belongingness needs to self-esteem needs. A failure to successfully negotiate this shift results in the pathology of this stage, the identity crisis. At concrete operational one might fail to find an appropriate or healthy role in society, resulting in a script pathology. At formal operational the person is faced with finding an individual self that may or may not fit with society at all (think of Henry David Thoreau).
In addition to being ecological, relational, and non-anthropocentric, formal operational thinking is also introspective and experimental. It also relies on evidence to settle issues, and can understand and use ”what if” or “as if” statements to make sense of the world. In many ways, it is a stage about what could be. Modern technology, modern medicine, and many other human comforts and discoveries are the result of formal operational thinking.
Next, we’ll look at stages beyond formal operational, what is often called the transpersonal.
Be well.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Comment Feed.
Interact:
Add a Comment |
Trackback Link |
Permalink
Share: 
Email This Post
| google | yahoo | furl | digg | del.icio.us | technorati | stumble
Subscribe: 
RSS Feed (what's this?)
Save: 
Print This Post
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
Bill,
You rock my mind. It’s been a long time since I’ve read a blog so theoretic and yet so intresting as the 3 blogs on cognitive development.
As much as I enjoyed them, there’s still this question in the back of my mind, why? Why are you posting these blogs?
Thanks for everything you’ve done, since I stumbled across Centerpointe about 8 months ago (which coincided with the birth of our first son), my life has been filled with fun and discoveries.
Kurt
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 am
I find this part extremely abstract and theoretical, even more than the other two. It reads like like an essay for a grad course in philosophy, not a newsletter for the vast majority of people with the aim of changing our lives.
I still fail to see the link between Piaget and how each of us can use his work in a form to change our lives in practice. Your LPIP is extremely practical and helpful in how to understand ourselves and make changes to out way of thinking.
Do you ever get your staff to read your newsletter and give you some feedback? Although I am a scientist, not an expert in humanities, I have obtained graduate degrees, so I feel I am educated more than the average person. Nevertheless I find your current work extremely hard to digest.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
As my life’s journey continues, I am experiencing to what you are alluding. By being aware, I am being unaware. The “ego” as it pertains to society at large, is one where the person is affected by what “others may think” of them; therefore paralyzing them from positive actions, because they are beset with the idea to label every action as “good or bad”. To offset this mental activity, the “ablility” to become aware of their “every thought” comes into play. Thus, you are providing a valuable outlet for those wishing to silence the “societal ego” and listen to their “Self-ego”.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 am
Dear Bill,
Thank you thank you a million times thank you! I have learned so much about the way I think, I strongly identify with the “formop”. If I had the opportunity to ask you ONE question, it would be, “Now that I am aware of my potential, what in world do I do with it? And how? I am at a choice point, a cross roads, time to shift from “thinking about thinking” to “thinking about acting” and ultimately, acting. Right?
You are a wonderfully insightful teacher, and I am thrilled to be your student!
Happy New Year!
Christina Hope
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
WOW Bill!
I’ve been reading these posts with interest and have re-read both one and two a couple times. I’m definitely going to have to re-read this one again after I’ve had a chance to digest it.
Some background:
I while back I discovered a world of energy medicine (from Donna Eden) and began what I will call my “spiritual journey”. It was this exposure to something so different to anything I had seen and experienced that began what I believe is my transition from conop to formop. I have now also studied EFT, TFT, LOA, Quantum Physics and other disciplines along the way. I use Holosynch (not as often as I should) and other forms of what I’ll call entrainment meditation. I listened intently to your retreat CD’s and that is when I first came across your concept of the mind as a map of reality and quite frankly have been struggling around the concept for some time.
My Challenge: (and I doubt I’m alone here)
- could just be a limiting belief) I tend to look for the “concrete” but if I can’t find it I can move to the “possible”. I find myself, however, in a significant struggle (with myself no doubt). I know I’m meant to provide much more back to the world than the opportunity presented in my 9-5 job. As I move towards things (e.g business opportunities) that I think will allow me the freedom to continue to pay the bills, leave the 9-5 and provide the value I believe I can bring I get stuck in two areas 1) doing the “work” required to be successful in a new area (procrastination and self doubt get in my way) and 2) understanding “what” I’m supposed to be doing. I’m a Certified Passion Test facilitator and have identified my passions but I can’t seem to “move” all the way to the next level. I find myself “stuck” and “stalled” and “struggling” all concepts I realize I create. I attempt to be the “witness” during these times and while I can for a short while I usually lose the battle and the witness disappears.
As a predominately left brain thinker (I think
I’ve been intrigued by the Life Principles Integration Process course since I got your first email years ago. I’m also intrigued by both Ken Wilbirs products and the Big Mind products you have recommended. None of them to this point has “felt” right so I’ve trusted my internal guidance and have held off in any purchase.
So the Question:
Can you recommend a set of steps, based on your products and/or products you have recommended to us to consider since I’m sure many of the people reading these posts are all at different stages of their development and are experiencing different but similar challenges?
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Dear Bill,
Your latest BLOG is very interesting and quite detailed. One has to concentrate, and sythesize and interpret quite a bit of information. I find it very difficult to “apply” the information to my current life. I am more “concrete/operational” and would appreciate blogs with more actual examples and “real” life cases.
Great insight and look forward to more information.
Kevin
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
This is a facsinating read. I am curious about your thoughts on the relationship between intelligence and an individual’s ability to move successfully from one stage to the next. So far you have discussed trauma as a major factor in inhibiting development, but I wonder if there are other cognitive issues that contribute to, or inhibit progression through the stages.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Could you further articulate your views on the pathologies of the formal operational stage? What does it look like? How is it best addressed?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Great post Bill,
I got to thinking during this that there must be a way of measuring exactly where we are at on a scale of sorts and from there a system to advance our way of thinking. Is there some test we can take?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Whew, I have completely had an ‘Ah-ha’ moment. It is so amazing how complex it all is yet so simple. I see what my kids have in their lives.. they are so rich with opportunities to build their self esteem, form as individuals, and know who they are. I’m amazed when i look at what I had growing up that I am as far along as I am!! I look forward to watching their accomplishments as they grow older. And your blog entry has yet again helped me to discover another piece of myself…thank you.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
O.K. This is very interesting! It makes me feel stuck more then ever but also gives me the awareness of that.So, perhaps I should move on?! Thanks!
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Dear Bill,
Yes, I am beginning to have a whole new level of understanding about this and I love the way your are able to help me and others put things together in a way that makes practical sense. I am feeling very encouraged these days, with a burst of new energy.! Not the kind of energy tht will disappate quickly. It feel smuch deeper that that. ” The word “abiding” just came to me. I am feeling a new feeling. Something that runs deep and has an abiding presence.
Oh by the way, I am on the second level of the Awakening Proogue. Maybe this also explains the change I am feeling. Also, I must admit that I am experienceing “upheaval” like you said could happen. In a couple of months, I plan to become your student in the Life Principles Course. I can’t quite afford it at the moment, but pretty soon I will be able to. I look very much forward to the experience.
Blessings,
Ianne Lavigne
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Bill,
Thank you so much for this ongoing information. I am recovering (4 months from surgery) from a craniotomy that 75% would have died from. I am having a fantastic recovery. Your Holosync CDs are a great help for me as it this mateiral that I have been reading. It would be a pleasure to just sit and talk to you.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I had to go back and read a section outloud in order to fully understand and become more aware of where I regress in my progression of meditated growth. Isn’t knowledge great? And the “AH-HAs” are worth the wait. May knowlegede and awareness create more abundanacy in us all.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Great stuff, Bill! Thank you. This is bringing back what I learned in LPIP to me, reminding me of useful things for my current situation.
Maybe this will serve as a concrete example. I had a time in my life when I got into a lot of arguments that went something like this:
I’d say, “If you want to see the bird bath from the kitchen window, then move the doghouse.”
They’d say, “How dare you tell me to move the doghouse!”
I’d blink in confusion. Eventually I realized that there are some people that simply can’t hear the word “if”. If I follow you correctly, in Piaget’s system, that means they haven’t yet reached the formop level.
I appreciate you giving us something a bit challenging to stretch ourselves with.
All the best to you,
Anna
January 4th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Bill
I honestly had to put my boots on whilst I muddled through this one. I can see that this is obviously a passion for your left brain thinking but I am more right brain intuitive and this bantering does little to help me.
I mean no offence but good god man what planet are you on?
January 4th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Hey Bill,
I love the new Blog format!!
I would love to get my girlfriend using Holosync but I fear it may ‘masculinize’ her
Any comments?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Well, this explains my struggle with letting go of the rules I used to believe, and just letting myself be enough, while still functioning successfully in my environment. My real self-esteem is starting to emerge– how timely this blog has been for me.
Man, I love this stuff! I find myself waiting for more! A real challenge in this intellectually un-stimulating time. I like that you stick to real information, and let us decide for ourselves. Thanks, Bill.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I don,t know ,,I really don,t know anything,,,I amabsolutely a know nothing identity,,,,I do know i am here ,,i am in my body,,am I being directed ,,,i have so many questions ,,,why am i in this body ,,,,why did I come here ,,,I f my body drinks wine does that affect Iii,,,,i really am cofused but only at this moment ,,,,IAMBACK
January 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Dear Bill, I love you, love you, love you………I just finished listening to the cd’s from your retreat that come with the first Holosync cd……..
However, ……….these blogs on development are beyond me, even more so, this one……….I had to laugh and agreed with Thomas’ comment !!!!!!!!!
My very best to you dear man,
Lynn
January 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Great !
I love the podcast format. This is the way I find time to acces your precious informations. I always wanted to access to those informations, but never find time or energy to read them. Now, I can use the time I travel to work ( 2 hours a day) to listen to them.
I am anxious to access Piaget 2 and 3 in MP3.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I have done a lot of research on narcissistic people and am curious to know where you stand on the following issues:
I am curious if you do not develop and and up being a narcissistic adult, is it reversible? People/most websties/orgaizations/professionsals say that it is irreversible and incurable. Especially because they have no empathy. OR if they have no self insight/empathy and can only see themselves how do you get them to see their narcissism?
Is it possible to be in a relationship with someone who is narcissistic?
What about all the other forms of personality disorders that look like npd but are actually adhd or depression or bi-polar?
How do you help a person who is so damaged by their upbringing and how do you stop this? I think it is unfair to abadon someone who did not ask to be raised in an environment that will stop their emotional development. MOst people say run and save yourself … but I think that is cruel.
My personal belief is that there is an epidemic of severely narcissistic people in the world so how do you prevent it? How do you heal or help someone who is hurting so bad inside from being narcissistic?
Please please please address this issue! I have done so much research on this subject and would love to get your opinion.
THANK YOU!!!!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I enjoyed the first two blogs in this series but this one was a little muddy. You stated that only about 30% of adults reach formop, but then later you started talking about the formop adolescent as if it is part of the normal developmental progression. The way you have described formop it seems to me that all of the adults I deal with at work are at least at the begining of formop. You’ve mentioned awareness of how our actions impact the whole, and I live where we recycle at home and work, we discuss global warming, we talk about reducing our carbon footprint. So I guess I’m stuck with the only 30% of adults figure. Where is this data coming from?
Also, the deal with the liquids, you said the kid that said all combinations must be tried was more developed, that’s just silly. Or I’m stuck at conop? The child was asked to produce the yellow liquid and told it was a specific combo of three that would produce it, but not which combo. Why after producing the liqud would it be necessary to try the other combos? And, what better method did this formop kid propose because other than trying each combo until one worked I don’t see another way and you didn’t mention one. This last item is maybe a bit nit picky but it just wasn’t a good example.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Cindy…I think the point was that the conop kid mixes things willy-nilly with no plan and will come upon the right combo by “accident”, while the formop kid actually sees the problem, sees all the possibilities, and creates a plan that intelligently utilizes the process of elimination and trial & error. In determining a scientific observation/process of how to produce the correct color liquid, the formop kid will be more likely to be able replicate the process because s/he had a plan of how to get there ahead of time. Both ways will eventually arrive at the same place in this type of exercise, so my understanding is that it’s more about the cognitive process involved in getting there (plan vs. no plan). As problems increase in complexity, though, the formop kid will have a decided advantage in solving them down the line.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Appreciate the effort Bill but there really are just too many words. How about summarizing these development model posts in a table or diagram(s) much like Ken Wilber has done with very complex integrating principles? Its a helpful framework or model to help people grow and talk about these things and understand where others are coming from. Keep going but the future is not in written words. People don’t have time to read and we all need to find visual ways to communicate these kinds of complex frameworks if people are going to break through to larger and more empowering perspectives. Thank you.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Bill- I just wanted to say that I haven’t gotten far with my “formal” education yet- only 3 years of college, but I find these posts EXTREMELY beneficial and easy to apply to my life. Please keep up the good work. I am taking your online courses, and this information certainly adds to and enhances that information. Since finding Centerpointe and Holosync about two years ago, my life has changed for the better in too many ways to mention. Thank you again for all that you do.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Joseph- well said!
January 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Your postings have reached me at a point in my life that could not have been more relavant. Thank you! Your postings were wonderfully written and have really helped me understand where I am at in this continuum.
I have been on your mailing list for several years. A few years ago I tried some of your products, but never fully completed the work. I must admit, for the last few years I just deleted the majority of your emails without reading.
Approximately 1 year ago I burned myself out - work, volunteering, personally. Not completely understanding what was going on I ended up in a pretty severe depression. I am now receiving counseling and therapy to help me understand what occurred and to help me put into place some of the skills to better navigate in the future.
I feel that I have reached a point in my life where I am starting to question “What is this all about?”, “Who am I”. Quotes I have always heard in the past, but have never really understood.
By reading your articles I can better understand what is going on in my life. I understand better that this is part of a natural phase of life. In a way it moves me from seeing my “depression” more as a “turning point” in my life. A very liberating thought.
Thank you. I look forward to reading much more of your posts. For me, your informative and intellectual examination of cognitive development has had quite an impact on helping me make changes in my life.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Bill has posted all of this information for us to use if we are ready for it. Holosync is all about shifting to the next developmental level, so as you are reading and wondering what planet this information came from, and why all these scientific labels are being applied to our development, you can come to the conclusion that Holosync is the facilitator in the process of emotional growth! Narcissism, or any other label for a developmental level we are on can be left behind with the use of Holosync, because it creates balanced brainwaves that support emotional health and growth. I use it, I believe it.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
hi bill
thank you for your ceaseless contribution to our well-being.
While I can follow these posts I would have to say that perhaps they are overcomplicating things for quite a lot of your readers. Personally it seems more relevant to point towards the reality of ones being-the certainty that I am here- (something really simple to do)- and that this looking takes care of everything. some of your readers might like to listen to john sherman at riverganga.org. He points to this everpresent unchanging reality of what i am so simply and succinctly-he really cuts through all the spiritual acquisition and intellectual understanding- to the root cause of all human suffering(the underlying unconscious false belief that I am my life).
I feel that anybody at any level of development can in an instant taste the reality of their own beingness- all this analysis seems like window shopping
thanks again
diarmuid
January 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Bill- Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the reason that so many people are having trouble understanding these posts is because if you’re operating at a preop or conop stage of development (not meaning better or worse, higher or lower- just where you are at this particular time in your development), you are, as you mentioned in an earlier post, like a fish who is unable to see the water that he’s swimming in because he’s immersed in it.
As you reach higher stages of cognitive development (such as formop), you’re more able to understand where you are, because rather than being immersed in that stage, your perspective is now wider and rather than being immersed in that particular stage of cognitive development, you have surpassed it and now have a different and larger perspective of it- you’re seeing it rather than being it.
I thank you so much for this info. I find it to be fascinating and I believe that you are very gifted at making information that is difficult to understand much easier. Please let me know if I’m on the right track with this. Pam
January 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hi Bill, fascinating ideas, I found them quite liberating reading. Something to add to my quiver for sure.
I was just wondering how does a person become obsessive…meaning at which stage are they stuck? Is it a type of neurosis and they’re stuck at that stage?
Thanks for your time and the great post,
David
January 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Actually all these pre occupations with theories, and yes they are just theories can only contibute to a sense of confusion for the seeker. It is also well noted that while it may be facinating to know this particular line of thoughts, its premise often times leads the student further away from any significant progress. Ones main goal should be detachment from the guru.
While it is in our inherint nature to know, this discussion is a first chakra issue leading to justification of the program. I won’t even get into the complexities of that issue. Once a student connects fully with the higher self they no longer require a guru or any of the tools for that matter. The best teacher is within each of us, the external should be considered white noise distractions.
January 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hi Bill! Do you know of any techniques or advice to aide parents in supporting the cognitive development of their children? I have a 2 year old and I want to make sure that my wife and I somehow affect his cognitive development in a positive manner.
Take Care,
Jonny
January 14th, 2008 at 9:05 am
An interesting thought struck me as I neared the end of Bill’s blog. I have 2 teenage children, and throughout the last 18 years of reading about parenting and gathering information on schooling, I have always been bothered by the empahasis placed on developing childrens’ “self-esteem.” Could it be that it bothers me because intuitively I know they are not developmentally ready to have the sort of self-esteem Bill describes? It seems to me we are inadvertently training a nation of children to HAVE narcissistic disorders by constantly focusing on their “self-esteem” and not on the actual development they need to go through to acheive it.
Yes, I love my children, and I want them to grow into strong, independent and socially aware individuals. But I want them to know the world does not revolve around them. They are important and I love them, but they are not the be-all or end-all of existence. Certainly, I’m not going to “tear them down” to reach this awareness, but I’m also not going to build a pedestal under them or an ivory tower for them to live in! There is a world of people out there, with lots of problems much more significant than any we have to deal with on a daily basis.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I love this conversaton. I am in the process of looking back at my life. I had anger for years and years regarding my parents and who they were and who I was too for that matter. I took responsibility at different times for their actions and reactions. I blamed them, I blamed myself, and was stuck for so long. Both of my parents for the most part were stuck in the pre-operational stage for my mom and the operational stage for my dad.
The way they were was just the way they were. This is helping me understand that based on where I was inside of my development it made it impossible for me to not blame myself for who they were.
Additionally, in the preoperational stage, true forgiveness is not available, because it involves seeing other people’s point of view and they don’t really exist yet. For my Mom
For my dad who was operational. He just needed to find agreement for any of his actions for him to be able to justify them as true and righteous. I was either bad or good.
What I see now is that the liberation from all of the past is available in going to the higher levels of my own cognitive development. I found the whole blog to be difficult to understand and grasp, but I love it.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Kemosabe,
When first I read your article, a question came to mind. How would you explain an Indian man who passes a steel rod through his leg, without any blood or marks? Although I saw this on television a number of years ago, the curiosity still looms. After reading about transcending previous levels as one progresses to higher states of development, a few similarities in sound came to mind. Such as moving through octaves in a musical scale and high frequency lambda waves riding on very low frequency epsilon waves. And it has been said that the universe folds back over onto itself to start anew or continue, like going from the world card back to the fool in the tarot deck (ha-ha). Would not the transcendence of the cognitive development then be a vibration at a higher octave in the “Great Chain of Being?” A penny for your thoughts.
I wonder are you going to draw from Alexander’s model, incorporating Vedic psychology, in your next installment? Or will you be plowing through Wilber’s Psychic, Subtle, and Casual - “unmanifest source or transcendental ground of all the lesser structures; the Abyss, the Void, the Formless.”????????
I’m looking forward to your next post.
All the Best,
~Tonto
January 16th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I’ve been listening to the podcasts of your blogs and I find them very understandable.
I am curious if you’ve studied Scientology and what your thoughts are on L Ron Hubbard’s work.
I’ll come out of the closest as a past Scientologist. When you were discussing religion, and the levels one can be at, my opinion is Scientology was an attempt to be transcendental to all previous religions. It is really promoted as being “it” and “the way out.” I find as a group, though, it is currently in lower cognitive stages, in regards to dogma, and although a core principal of Scientology is returning self-determinism to the individual, the reality was you had to follow and do as you’re told. And there also exists the kind of unspoken dogma regarding sex, where there is this purist mentality that is found in a lot of other religious sects.
I was wondering if you could comment on sex in regards to spirituality. I think St Paul became infamous for throwing a curve ball into Jesus’ teachings that avoiding carnal pleasure was a good idea. My personal opinion is there can be a wholeness, a completeness to life, as with anything.
Sex, for me, has been the biggest issue in my life in regards to getting along socially as I generally have two lives: one being the socially acceptable where I work, etc and do all the things I’m supposed to do and a sexual side, and I’ve created a division of the two.
My biggest obstacle in moving forward as a sexual person in the self-help movement is there always seems to be this divide of either sex is bad or sex is way over-emphasized. I don’t like either. I like a happy medium, and it seems that we as rational beings can work it out, like we can work out anything else we come in contact with.
So, my problem in this post is I cannot fit completely into a social setting, and I generally have to do self-help work on my own, just due to the embarrassment. But for it to completely work, I have to marry the two “lives” and become one. That is my dilemma and I am working on how to do it.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hi Bill, To what Pam said above, for me, i don’t think it is the level of where I’m at, so it may apply also to others, as energetically, I get much and experience much internally that many do not experience and cannot comprehend……….it is that my mind is not in a place of processing the new terminology easily at this time, without study……I am intelligent, but not an intellect and learn more by example and experience!! I absolutely loved and ‘got’ your book………not ‘beyond’ me at all!!!!!
Best, Lynn
January 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Today is day 1 - I am so hoping this works for me. I feel like I have butterflies in my stomach. Not really that much fun but pretty exciting but fearful. Yikes, no wonder I am searching for peace!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Hi Bill,
I love it, this is cool.
It is pretty intense though, I need to read it a few time, and just can’t seem to get enough of it….
Thanks, and looking forward for the next one…
Cheers!!!,
January 18th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Hi Bill,
I’m impressed with the effort and patience you have put into clarifying these concepts and the misconceptions that have arisen over your discussion of the developmental stages.
Also, as a cognitive psychologist, and someone who teaches university courses in learning and thought processes, I appreciate how such concepts can be illuminating and helpful for some. In my own development, I was very inspired by Piaget’s theories, and used them as a jumping point towards grasping the implications of a larger evolution towards gradually more symbolic and abstract thought.
BUT - I find myself wondering what the aim of these posts are.
On one hand, the specifics Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory is no longer up-to-date - while he provided an important starting point, current research has updated and elaborated his preliminary theory a great deal - showing for example, that advanced cognitive abilities are evident at much earlier ages, depending on the task and how it is presented.
On the other hand, and on a personal note, it is very clear for me that it is my *emotional* patterns that are holding me back - not any lack in formal operational cognitive abilities (being a published academic and college lecturer should bear me out in this regard).
If the aim is to ‘talk philosophy’, or pave the way towards discussion of Wilber’s integrative theory - then Piaget’s work on epigenesis is far more pertinent. Or even as a discussion of the implications of Piaget’s theories, there isn’t need to get into the detail of Piaget’s developmental stages for this.
More importantly - the mistaken idea that we can so absolutely diagnose people’s particular thought stage is potentially dangerous. Again - in current research, we know that children’s cognitive capacities develop in a much more complex way than supposed by Piaget - there may be differential development, where some capacities (e.g. math) may be far more advanced than other capacities (e.g. language). Or some children show back and forth movement between stages as they grow. The environment, the type of language and stimulation effect the ability of children to display a particular ability.
As well, learning processes are enormously complex, and also evolving. Learning today is becoming more and more engaged (constructivist theories, of which Piaget is considered one of the important first theorists), and it is easy to mistake someone who is trying his theories out in the world as simply ‘limited to the conop stage’.
And more to the point - the claim that limiting beliefs are a result of our cognitive developmental stage is a BIG jump, and should be carefully researched and supported. By starting out with a scientific theory and then jumping to discuss implications in a different area - i.e., our emotional/personal development - you are conveying the impression that your claims (or Wilber’s) are scientifically based - which they are not.
You are drawing a direct analogy between Piaget’s stages and emotional abilities. While I agree there is an intimate link between our cognition and emotional processes, what you’re creating here has strong pseudoscience potential.
For example, I’ve noted that in other responses, people have ‘diagnosed’ themselves as ‘being in the ConOp stage’ - this shows how misleading this discussion is: the very ability to diagnose *themselves* shows that they are engaging in metacognitive processes. In other words - something else is going on. They are actually looking at where they are emotionally, not cognitively.
What I would like to hear from the Holosync blog is whether you have done studies on its use, how it interacts with different people, what kind of effects can starting and stopping have, discussions of typical difficulties people might experience, etc.
Thanks!
Heidi
January 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Bill, you state in your blog, “But since ego is the bad guy, New Age thinking often equates everything that is non-rational, every perspective not associated with ego, as being good.” Do you have any examples of this? BTW, even in my 12 years living in LA, I never met anybody who claims to be a New Ager, the term has taken on such a pejorative connotation. So if you provide quotes from anybody you wish to designate as a New Ager, even though they probably wouldn’t call themselves that, I won’t argue with your label. I’m just curious if anybody has written any such thing you claim.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Dear Bill,
I purchased Awakening many years ago and was dedicated to using the CD every day for about 2 years. I have not purchased further levels because I felt the benefits that I received from Dive and Immersion were awesome. I do still use the CD but not as frequently. Mind Chatter was always so good and I learned so much from it over the years and have gone on to read some of Ken Wilber and various Buddhist writings. Holosync changed my life and has allowed me to create a life that I love and to keep learning and progressing. Thank you so much for creating such a helpful product and being passionate about helping people to develop their minds to be free of emotional turmoil and to be able to see life with clarity and equanimity. The Blog That Ate Mind Chatter seems like such an appropriate name and it made me chuckle.
Take care and please keep up the fantastic work.
Nancy
January 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Thanks Bill,
I’m taking your online coures with katie and I’ve been listen to holosync for about 9 months now, i am so amazed and thankfull. I get it now, something that has lingered in the back of my mind all my life has now become clear. Wow! I wish i could give something back to you and Katie because what have given me is worth so much more than the money i paid. You have helped me realise what a gift this life is. If you ever come to Calgary dinner is on me.
Thanks so much!!!
Sam
January 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Bill, would you please open up the mind chatter archives. I believe newcomers to Centerpointe are missing out a lot without it.
When I started meditating with holosync in 2004 I often felt lonely and needed reassurance beyond the support line. I found the Mind Chatter archive extremely helpful. I read everything in there over and over.
I found strength in there to continue meditating even during those moments that I was overwhelmed and felt like quitting.
I am at purification level 2 now. I find it hard to find words to describe who I have become both internally and externally. Life is beautiful.
This blog is great. But for the sake of newcomers reopen the Mind Chatter Archieve.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
My inner child says adults make life more complicated than it needs to be. It also says that the majority of problems out in the world today are a result of selfish behavior brought about by parents with a one track mind. Its this race to growup and be something or somebody. To create more rules that dont work and to have the audacity to justify them with excuses and a lot of other nonsense that drives you further and further from the truth.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Dear Pam,
I think your right in taking a holistic view of it all, No better, no worse just not understanding. I find these blogs very helpful, I can remember when I had similar thought processes when I was a kid… the whole magical thing… then the whole black and white thing-do this,get that result etc. I think I’m past all that now.. on to the next hey? :o)
January 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
All we need now is a Theory that explains Everything!! just kidding.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
THere seems to be a logical flaw in BIlls reasoning where he seems to equate being able to imagine a new reality with being willing to adopt a new belief without any evidence to support it. These are not the same thing and yet BIll would have us believe that both of these are aspects of the higher type of thinking. I would say no, the first is, the second is just foolishness.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:25 am
About self-esteem in children (to Jill). In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with a little self-esteem! Don’t knock it until you don’t have it!
I am wondering if there is some belief about it that you might uncover with some soul-searching? That it is somehow bad? Also, I am sure that their lives DO revolve around them. Everything they see is through their own two eyes– their own perspective. I would think as teenagers who are not fully developed yet, they would be better off knowing themselves and their strengths before taking on the world and its tragedies. Though teens LOOK like adults, and emulate them, they are still kids with needs.
Think about it.
JUST MY OPINION, OF COURSE, from my own experience!
January 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Interesting and mind-bending stuff.
I like the chart idea as well. I think it would be interesting to in the end link all of the major schools of thought in this area to show the comparisons and contrasts.
I’ve studied Piaget, Malsow and other behavioural masters academically and truthfully I ended up with pen and paper to “map” this all out as it was a bit confusing.
I DO appreciate that you are linking everything to real research and study done on the human mind, how it works and how we develop. I think it is really important to do this so it gets rid of the magic “pie in the sky” aspects to the LOA that are so prevalent elsewhere. Perhaps it’s just satisifying my own academically bent “ego”, but it’s all good.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I’m lost my mind doesn’t even comprehend half of what you talking about. Could you please give us a simpler explantion.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
EXCELLENT! Eager to hear about the transpersonal level!
I love your blogs when they don’t have any judgments entangled in them. There was a bit with the whole perception of “New Agers” but easier to pass by this time with the juicy explanation of Formop having the most focused attention.
Thank You!!! Overall, Holosync is the most fun I’ve had on my spiritual journey since shamanism.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
#2
Pam-
about 8 posts up… I completely agree with your elegantly phrased observation.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Dear Bill,
I am thoroughly enjoying and learning a lot from your blog series on developmental stages. In the past couple years, I have been reading a lot of Ken Wilber and shaping an integral life practice based on the structure provided by his Integral Institute, the writing and experience of Murphy and Leonard, Holosync, and your writing. Years ago in graduate school, I did studies on children pertaining to Piaget’s ideas about egocentricity. While I’ve read a fair amount about the concept, the notion of ego has always confused me. The manner in which you integrate Wilber, Habermas, and Piaget makes all kinds of sense and does a lot to clarify reality and give me a better map.
Many thanks,
Mike McClean
January 20th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Bill,
After reading these blogs about the developmental stages it has become clear to me that I somehow made it into my mid forties with the developmental level of a six year old. I can’t say I’m particularly stoked…but on the bright side, because I’m doing holosync and am on the second of your online courses, I have hope that I will somehow progress through the stages and be able to have a more functional, even happy and successful life. These blogs make a lot clear to me….One age old question you’ve answered for me is why so many people you meet who seem to have all the potential in the world are so extremely low functioning. My own father, clearly still at the magical stage had a high I.Q., was gifted artistically, mechanically, and musically. He was a kind person who worked hard and seemed to have it all going for him but he was very low functioning and died young. Now I look around me and see people like myself….struggling, not understanding why they can’t make sense of things even though many of them are basically very bright and some even exceedingly intelligent. Anyway, I hope I’m not involving a common coping mechanism for me, wishful thinking, when I hope I’ll be able to grow through these stages now that I’m aware of them. Can people progress through these stages in adulthood if they allow the chaos they’ve been so carefully avoiding to work it’s magic and reorganize them at a higher level? I know you’ve said holosync can help this happen…
Will you be telling us how to move through the stages in later blogs if we’re not already ‘there’? I hope so. Can you suggest reading material, counselors, classes, SOMETHING? I’m so glad I know this, now, because now my level of functioning makes so much more sense. I have already noticed myself approaching challenges first by randomly attempting to solve them followed by an emotional outburst if I can’t figure it out. Some times I stumble upon a solution which I then attribute to something that probably has nothing to do with the outcome at all. And then I go back to more random attempts and more emotional outbursts.
What got me thinking I may be preopperational was the part about thinking you had magical powers. It sounds crazy even to me, but I never moved out of thinking I had magical abilities. Please understand I don’t consciously go around thinking about this, but when I contemplated it I realized I have believed magical things about myself. I wonder if a child is surrounded by people they don’t trust may they be less likely to progress to the level of thinking that certain special others had magical abilities?….Again, now that I’ve noticed this I hope I can grow up, because being developmentally crippled is no pick nick, as you know. Nearly my entire family, other than one grandfather were all preopperational as far as I can tell. I can see how hard they’ve struggled and how little progress they’ve made….and maybe this is why.
I guess this explains why I never had any aspirations as a teen other than to survive until the next day…nor could I ever decide what I wanted to do when I grew up even though I seemed to have enough talent to do well in a variety of areas. I can think about things, but have trouble implementing plans without a lot of internal chaos, random activity, and out bursts. And forgiving…someone mentioned they thought people earlier in the stages couldn’t forgive and I wonder if that’s why I’ve struggled so much to do so and have had so little success (more now with holosync and the lpip course.) Is that something that gets easier as you encompas the higher stages?
Anyhow, as much as I am embarrassed to air this stuff in front of ‘y’all’, I’m fairly desperate to change, even if it means doing things in ways that feel extremely uncomfortable and sometimes down right painful. I also have learned from you, Bill, that if I don’t resist the discomfort it will cease to exist. I deeply appreciate your desire to help us with this information. I understand some people, maybe those at higher stages, think this stuff isn’t important. But I can assure you it’s monumental if you have somehow missed the progress train.
I look forward to further blogs….Thank you. And the lpip courses are brilliant. Lauren
January 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
My problem is that I am not too savvy re Ipod downloading and I would really like to read all this blog. It is very interesting and too much for me too print. Is there any way I can get all this printed material by mail or is there another way?. I have been ill with sinus infection for about a month and unable to concentrate when on the computer for too long. Any suggestions?
January 20th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Hello Bill,
Your posts are golden, just golden.
“Too long?”! Too long relative to what? And there were “too many notes” in Mozart’s music, too! Aside from your blog entries, which are, as Goldilocks might say, just right, there are some real gems from the readers. Like these:
Jonny - thank you for asking an important question!! Never seen that discussed before, and the answer would probably help many, many families. No kids of my own, but two amazing, gorgeous nephews under 6.
Anna Paradox - thank you, too! Oh my word, I have SO had that same kind of argument with family members, too many times. “IF! IF!” Different cognitive levels? Ahhh, okay then. And,
Jessica - “Bill has posted all of this information for us to use if we are ready for it”. Bingo!
“…or any other label for a developmental label that we are on
can be left behind with the use of Holosync…” Ding-ding! Right again!
Your contribution is so good, everybody might want to re-read it.
You said it much better than I would have. You must be miles ahead of me in Holosync.
This discussion also reminds me of a concept that I’ve heard from a personal growth guru: he says given a choice between two good things….
TAKE BOTH! I love that line. I mean really, why should anyone be stuck just being “right brain dominant” or “left brain dominant”? I choose to have BOTH sides of my brain functioning optimally, and luckily, with Holosync, I can. We all can. Whoopee!
love, Katbert
January 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Today I re-read post2 and post3. The mind is an amazing thing. Information that was obviously there became available after being able to associate it with something already in the brain - my last reading. All my life - feel I’ve have moments of formal thinking, totally unaware that it was just any more than just thinking. I have been introspective by nature, spending time just wondering about stuff. Thanks for giving it a name. It seems in my life that I’ve had a talent for knowing when some was ‘right’, ‘hot’ or going to be great because it already was. That’s how I feel about almost everything I see here. Great hope for the future of mankind, and the world. Thanks for providing the place. Be well yorself
Scote
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Bill once again your thought process is pristine. My god, this brings a lot of clarity to my world.
Thanks so much,
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Lauren: Thank you for giving a detailed example, rooted in your own direct experience, of how magical thinking can manifest in the adult mind.
But, does occasional magical thinking mean that you are stuck at a “magical level”? I don´t think so. Even yogis might have regressive tendencies… but they are immediately witnessed, and therefore unharmful. I totally honor your commitment to change though!
I ´ve been thinking along these lines: If you can play with magical thinking, you honor the inner child, the manifestation of form, that you once were - as a conscious and playful regression in the service of I.
Would I want to become an adult without ANY regressive, magical thinking tendencies at all? Seems a bit…repressive? Or do I somehow reclaim the mystery and the magic at a transpersonel level, without egoic boundaries…?
January 24th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Bill, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject of cognitive development. I can see why now we are what think and thus create.
I am a busy professional woman, young but planning on my future, etc. and do all the stuff you gotta do to make it and live well in this world.
While I love to read theoretical and on the edge novel/ new stuff that the rest of the world rather not concern about, I find it hard to stay awake and digest and ‘Get’ the message you want us to know, like cliff notes version. Some of us are more evolved than others mentally, but after 12 hours of work, graduate school and stuffs, I am exhausted and my mind is no better than 12th grader. I guess I’m saying I love to read and read these blogs… but I miss mind-chatter.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 am
I loved these posts on human/adult development. I am a big fan of Ken Wilber and the Integral Institute and utilize their resources in addition to yours to keep moving up the stages. I would love posts to help us all on our develomental journey. Or will it just happen doing Holosync? Thanks for your wonderful program…and all the support you give. Loren
January 30th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Hi Bill,
Great thoughts but Piaget was actually wrong, even young children can be theoretical in their thinking, it depends on the relationship they establish with the task. (Vygotsky, Holt) You might enjoy Harold Oliver’s A Relational Metaphysics. You are thinking from a cognitive paradigm, but I suspect that you will find a socio-cultural theoretical approach to education much more satisfying and in tune with what you really think. Primary to this approach is the literary theorist Bakhtin.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Hi,
I am curious, does Holosyc have a reverse effect on Alzhiemers?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
This is (as always with Bill) so left brain!
Bill - you know as well as I do that being informed about is not the same as knowing it. So whilst I understand your obvious and understandable concern for those stuck on less developed (magical) thinking for god’s sake talk to us about about the spiritual dimension.
Where is the heart in all of this endless left brain stuff? Yes many of us of are very familiar with Piaget’s work- we’ve go got it - please let’s move in.
Where is the transcendent dimension Bill? Just for once, please move beyond your left brian reductionism and offer us a glimmer of the spiritual - and especially your own experience of it - please Bill.
You claim enlightenment experience (which I don’t personally doubt) then please demonstrate it by moving beyond these basic levels you seem so obsessively stuck on and talk to us from your heart - move us - inspire us - reach us with some real spiritual insight and uplift.
And preferably from your direct experience - based on your life - sharing your spiritual ( rather than intellectual / left brain ) experience and insights.
Thankyou.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Thanks Stephen ( and Janet, Thomas and a few others above .. )
Yes, I AM enjoying reading this, Bill .. and I would really like for you to expand what you have written beyond the, quite narrow, confines of Piaget.
I gather Piaget used a very small sample of children in the research ( mainly, his own children and a few others! ). Meaning the children involved were developing within a quite limited range of experiences - familial, cultural to name but two.
I am also noticing a scope for your wording to possibly imply that the term “mind” might be taken to mean solely: “what goes on in the cognitive brain”. From my own personal growth and from hearing the experience of others, I am becoming more attuned to the notion of the “body-mind”. In terms of expanded awareness noticing body responses and using those as more information from which to operate from. This has helped me hugely in my own journey towards self-esteem, self-awareness, confidence, motivation. And as Stephen says above - inspiration - to be inspired by myself as well as being touched by the endeavours and wisdom of others.
I felt a strong need to make these points, Bill, as I read other responses over the three installments. I do realise what a HUGE task this is, as there is so much material out there. I am particularly following the more recent neuro-biology research (Daniel Siegal, Antonio Damasio, Allan Schore, and, !gasp! Candace Pert! and the child work of Stanley Greenspan) which all seem to place a growing emphasis on the body-brain mind system. (And I do realise that I am over-simplifying the variety of approaches of these researchers.)
One aspect of all their work that strikes me strongly is that they are tracing the connections between how our relationships with other human beings SHAPES us and AFFECTS us at a cellular, indeed at a chemical level. And that our very cells around our body record events (traumas etc.. ) in their own chemical language. All happening beyond the remit of the upper Cognitive layers. And all vitally important as part of our “Total Inner Wisdom System” (I could TradeMark that!!)
Deep meditation ( including Holosync ) I believe is a wonderful way of working (without the work!) at these levels, as also is, deep therapy with a therapist who has the capacity to accompany one to, and through, these realms.
Enough!
Warmest wishes to all. (and excuse my non-American spelling!!)
Eugene.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hello,
I am looking for the Mind Chatter archives… I had started reading all the old ones after I started Holosync, stopped when I got too busy and now, I can’t find them anymore. I know it is not produced anymore, but I never thought that meant they would be removed from the site, are they??
I really enjoyed Mind Chatter. It was short enough to read with my morning coffee. And it wasn’t just a one person’s views… I really loved the quotes, and the Coach’s corner, these front line people who assist us when we run into massive resistance! They may work behind the scene, but some of them do quiet, enormously useful, sensitive work with Holosync participants. You can always tell when someone really hears you and gives you not a canned formula, but suggestions that are just right for you because they are very present and they have done their work.
I am very grateful for these coaches, and I would like to see a new version of the Mind Chatter that includes them and gives them a voice rather than a single guru approach to the blog. Bill is very knowledgeable, but I did Piaget in the ’60s and I find this whole development thing limited. We are so much more than levels of development moving in a linear fashion. We are multidimensional beings expanding all the time in all directions. It feels like going backwards or contradictory to me to do Holosync and then get into this left brain, wordy, heady blog?? I want simple…
Yes, we do have the intelligence to understand Bill’s very long blogs, but may be we know also that Truth is elegantly simple, that in the end, we all have to go inside for our Knowing, and remember the larger Whole that we are part of. When I die, i won’t be reviewing whether I know all the levels of development and which one I am at…I may just simply be at peace having awakened to the joy and allowing of the present moment…
Anne
February 28th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Thank you Anne. You have expressed what I was trying to say - but much more clearly and simply!
Also, I find Eugene’s reflections on the “body-mind” and “total inner wisdom” aspects very helpful as well - thank you as well.
Namaste
Stephen
May 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Dear Bill Just one question. If we can be informed but not have to be inendated then why all the recommendations like cohen,wilber,james Ray,etc, Why can’t