Help
Sign In
whatever
October 2009 
Pod Think?
Posted on Mar 9th, 2009
by 
mikeS
mikeS
I've been invited to join many different pods throughout Gaia and I've joined some on my own. Some invitations I accept since I don't like being rude (well, most of the time). Unfortunately, most of the groups tend to rely on an ideology and expect the discussions to adhere to that ideology. Some groups are about 'doing' or action. Others adhere to a Buddhist or Integral ideology and some adhere to a spiritualized Christian viewpoint.
Problem is, that ideology tends to hem in and channel thought and this often occurs under the radar. Usually these pods originate with a "cultivator" who clearly has a particular bias in relation to a worldview (of course not all).
Many of the pods that I've joined, over the past approx 2 years, that adhere to an ideological perspective I've pretty much made myself scarce. That's because i don't adhere to any precise ideology and enjoy, as the integralists call it, "juggling perspectives." Yet, this has a tendency to rain on the parade.
Of course, if folks can't pin you down to any specific opinion or way of thinking they then tend to get mighty perturbed. They then indict you as playing the game of "devils advocate" and, lets face it, nobody likes the devil.
In addition, what tends to occur, based on my brief study of pod member relations, is that certain pod regulars acquire a 'reputation.' This is because they often veer off course from the preordained path originally laid down by the pod originators. I have noted that frequently these folks are asked to exit or, most likely, they finally exit on their own since they feel their ideas are somewhat unwelcome and, like old soldiers they tend to just fade away.
"GroupThink" has been studied fairly extensivley by the psychological sciences and WIKI defines it as:
You see critical, analytical thinking which digs into ideas and "parses" perspectives (another accusation leveled against me) to discover the richness below the surface. However, digging in the dirt is not pretty and many would prefer we not do that!
Notice that the groupthink's chief defining property is the reduction of conflict. Therefore, making comments of a negative nature (and I don't mean offensive or attacking which are not welcome in any conversation) are anathema to most pod agendas.
In fact, this post will be construed in just such a manner by many of the 'positive' folks and because of its negative undertones will most probably be ignored.
Anyway, enough rambling. I haven't been posting for awhile, so I thought I'd simply jump in as my old controversial self and let 'er rip!
because....every rose has its thorns!
Peace Angels,
mike
Problem is, that ideology tends to hem in and channel thought and this often occurs under the radar. Usually these pods originate with a "cultivator" who clearly has a particular bias in relation to a worldview (of course not all).
Many of the pods that I've joined, over the past approx 2 years, that adhere to an ideological perspective I've pretty much made myself scarce. That's because i don't adhere to any precise ideology and enjoy, as the integralists call it, "juggling perspectives." Yet, this has a tendency to rain on the parade.
Of course, if folks can't pin you down to any specific opinion or way of thinking they then tend to get mighty perturbed. They then indict you as playing the game of "devils advocate" and, lets face it, nobody likes the devil.
In addition, what tends to occur, based on my brief study of pod member relations, is that certain pod regulars acquire a 'reputation.' This is because they often veer off course from the preordained path originally laid down by the pod originators. I have noted that frequently these folks are asked to exit or, most likely, they finally exit on their own since they feel their ideas are somewhat unwelcome and, like old soldiers they tend to just fade away.
"GroupThink" has been studied fairly extensivley by the psychological sciences and WIKI defines it as:
"a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking."Ahhh... good 'ole "comfot zone"! This seems to be an afflicton of many of the pods particularly those that rely extensively on some ideological basis as foundation for all discussion. In fact, as I write this I opened a gaia email, of a response to a previous comment I had made, asking me not to contribute any more "negative crap " HA! Gotta love it.
You see critical, analytical thinking which digs into ideas and "parses" perspectives (another accusation leveled against me) to discover the richness below the surface. However, digging in the dirt is not pretty and many would prefer we not do that!
Notice that the groupthink's chief defining property is the reduction of conflict. Therefore, making comments of a negative nature (and I don't mean offensive or attacking which are not welcome in any conversation) are anathema to most pod agendas.
In fact, this post will be construed in just such a manner by many of the 'positive' folks and because of its negative undertones will most probably be ignored.
Anyway, enough rambling. I haven't been posting for awhile, so I thought I'd simply jump in as my old controversial self and let 'er rip!
because....every rose has its thorns!
Peace Angels,
mike
Access: PublicTagged with: Whatever
Well Hal-a-damn-lulia! This needed to be said. Thanks for your authentic originality. Gotta run and show this to a few other friends, and perhaps even link to it … tehe tehe
PodThink! Hah. That is awesome.
I think conflict is a good thing.
I think, though, that there’s a difference between conflict where both sides are searching for a ‘third side’ that includes both and conflict where each is trying to convert the other. It’s the difference between growing with and through a group, and being a rigid and defensive preacher of rightness. I have a bias for the former.
Because I think most of us here would like to think we’re here to learn and grow, yes? And so if we come into conflict with another (which will happen, I hope!), I think there’s an implicit understanding that we’ll seek to learn from the other person (or, at the very least, try to understand their perspective) before trying to work out a new understanding that incorporates both views. (Thesis / Antithesis / Synthesis, yes? ;)
And yes, this can get messy! Nothing wrong with that.
Still, I’ll confess that I think playing Devil’s advocate for the sake of it isn’t always a wise or kind thing–after all, it’s important to treat people with respect, even if you don’t agree with their thoughts, and riding roughshod over someone’s cherished belief system isn’t always the most respectful thing to do. In fact, it’s important to recognize, I think, that different people have different edges and what one person might see as harmless sparring another might feel deeply hurt or frightened by. However, if you’re truly and heartfully committed to growing and truth-ing and seeking and learning, then there’s no reason at all not to post an opposite viewpoint. In fact, I think the world depends on it.
Just my .02. ;)
(And someone had BETTER disagree with me!!)
Satya,
Glad you liked it!
Siona,
Yes I too abhor ‘righteousness’ and you bring up some good points regarding poor social skills, which I have been guilty of (sigh).
The accusation of “devil’s advocate” is often directed in response to frequent questioning and failure to accept the general consensus of the Pod cultivator or even a thread originator. I too, have always been attracted to the dialectic, problem is many do not have the patience for the time this achieving synthesis often takes up. In fact, it seems with regard to any analytical or dialectical discussion, results are expected instantly or at least sooner rather than later.
I agree with much of what you point out (sorry).
However you seem to have missed my broader concept of pods having an ideological bent and inconspicuously, or even unconsciously, requiring conformance. I recently refused an invitation to a pod in which I am aware that the cultivator clearly adheres to a Buddhist ideology (I didn’t state this as my refusal as that would be poor etiquette). Not that i have anything against Buddhism (in fact I feel very comfortable with that ideology above most other religious philosophies). Its just that I feel that the dialogue would be constricted and subsumed by the ideology. My feeling is that this tends to exclude and this exclusionary aspect of ideological fixation is evident in the macro-world. Not that there really is anything that can be done about it…at least not that i know of. So I’m just saying…
This was just an observation I was toying with. However, I have to say that I have found that the same dynamics played out in Gaia, is available for observation in the macro-world. Gaia would be a wonderful graduate thesis for a sociology student.
Thanks,
mike
:)
glad to see this
when i read the little that you wrote…without knowing you and being very tired
i wondered how the thinkers and the learners/teachers thru questioning ever really find a home
or even if ‘we’ really want to have one
pods are most definately like a portrait of the one creating them
and well i personally think they are entitled to moderate and keep things just how they like them
though for those looking for a thing to toss around for thinking purposes might feel stymied
also, when some of us are offering food for thought without attaching to any particular direction or honestly wishing to wear a side they do not agree with personally just to experience it
it seems others seem to think the thinking aloud and the questioning means we value the person that chooses to answer as our superior and alternate brain…and will be pushy more or less accordingly..
some of this is a semantic communication error and many other times it is not
i had thought of starting a think about it then change your mind pod
but one can only imagine some of the long unwanted pushy views that i might have to read thru to find the good honest non secondhand thinkers
what to do what to do :P
Well, Mr. mike, tragically I agree with you, too.
:shakes fist:
I do think that all groups (just like all human beings!) include unconscious ideological assumptions, and that all groups have both explicit and implicit regulations and acceptable ideas and assumptions. To my mind there’s not much that can be done about this–other than to acknowledge it and, as a group member, commit to increasing awareness around where those unspoken (or unspeakable!) pressures and oppressions lie.
Because of course all groups require conformity at some level! If there were not a boundary or definition, there’d be no group, no? ;) And so of course a group (as an entity with a certain energy that’s larger than each of its members) will find any challenges to those edges threatening, as it’s this that constitutes and creates the very identity of the group-as-a-whole.
I say this only because a) it helps be more understanding of the sweet monster that each group is, and b) to know that the best way to help it grow and relax and expand is not to poke at it with anger and vitriol, but to massage it gently outward, and to grow its boundaries rather than rip them apart. :)
Hugs, sweet you, and thanks again for a great topic.
elisa: I love what you wrote about pods being a portrait of their creators! I entirely agree. And because all the creators are human, and flawed and imperfect as any of us, so of course all the Groups will have their own troubled spots and blind areas. Also, I like your pod idea. Maybe a Group where people can leave thoughts they don’t want anymore? ;)
Elisa,
Yes, pod originators should be able to keep things as they like, for why else would they start the pod. And yes, the thinking aloud can often become an issue. It seems that in general we all have a propensity to seek agreement, not just to validate the ‘self,’ but also to acquire an anchor point for which to stabilize the ‘self’ in an extremely absurd world. Thus, when one questions that anchor we have chosen, we can become defensive.
Siona,
I suppose this post was a general feeling based on some past observations and was written to see how others feel. In my employ, I tend to use the details offered as a way of looking for patterns and this tactic bleeds into other life domains (to my wife’s chagrin). Yes! all of life requires conformity to a degree and if there were “no a boundary or definition” there’d be no ‘self-concept.’ then who would we be? Yet, seems to me, a little philosophical poking can be helpful if done in the spirit of inquiry. In fact, it has been shown that the deviant often increases the cohesion of grp members who thereby include the deviance within the grp norm.
Deb,
Actually I was hoping not to identify any grp specifically. I have recently had to limit participation from all pods due to logistical factors. However, I still have thread comments emailed to me and enjoy reading the discussions as time permits. Your pod as always been of interest to me since my spritual start was as a devotee of ‘science of mind’ way back in my teen yrs. And yes, that previous disagreement was determined to be my misunderstanding.
This is all just philosophizing and sometimes philosophies are relevant and helpful other times it’s just pure drivel and I’m more likely the one spouting irrelevant drivel. Ha! (however, every once in a while, I touch on something relevant).
Thanks for the great thought-provoking comments guys!
mikeS
Siona:
I did not write AT ALL that pods or people have blind spots or errors. If a person does a thing for themselves it is up to them only what they wish to see or not. No person must ever consider someone else’s wishes, understanding or point of view. I think that believing they must is a fatal error. No one ever needs someone of self proclaimed spiritualistic higher status to correct them, nor to take a persons words and in an effort to show aggreement to add their own and twist them into a meaning that was never there to begin with.
It is or can be fruitful to have access to other’s individual and unique perspectives when they speak for themselves only. Sharing of self does not require aggreement, only speaking of self and not borrowing or rephrasing incorrectly another’s words. There are people in Gaia in particular that love to rephrase and do it in such a way as if they think they have found agreement when they are then spouting and propogating fallicies mostly based upon their name or reputation here. I avoid these people now. They are very dangerous. And as to the comment about thoughts I do not want anymore, if I wish to share a thing or a thought it is definately not an unwanted one, the effort to put me in my place by your opinon of my thought process has failed once again. People keep forgetting I share to please myself. Unless I tell a person that I care about their opinion, I do not. Though I may choose to occupy space with them for a time. This does not ever grant ownership over me nor an excuse or complicity to do the desired thought or behavior.
Mike: By what I said I meant that there cannot be a collective self ever. Unless one is a multiple and even then what occurs is based upon dominant expression of one. Another cannot speak for me, think for me, breathe for me, eat for me and so on, unity of purpose for a task, is not collectivism. Synchronicity in a moment is not collectivism.
Well, Elisa, your comments have piqued my interest and drive-to-question.
It seems we have a natural tendency to seek agreement as movement away from dissonance and this is a natural tendency. However, dissonant notes have their place in any musical score, yet the inner drive is always toward consonance, agreement, merger. I admit I often play the role of a dissonant voice, however, I cannot deny the desire to find consonance. Yet, I do tend to deny consonance through platitudes since, for me, this has only become more dissonant. Unfortunately this makes me appear as consistently disagreeable.
Of course sharing is pleasing to ‘self,’ but much more so when acceptable to others? Maybe we seek to strike a balance?
In addition, possibly there is only a collective ‘self’ or ego? Do we really breathe, eat, speak, and even think any differently than anyone else?
I recognize the experience of these ‘doings’ is perceived as unique, or contingent to a separate self, but is it really? Possibly all our unique experiences are exactly identical, yet interpreted through an egoic sense of separate individuality that is really delusional?
Ha! not quite sure where I’m going with this absurd tact, but there it is for anyone who would like to chime in.
Thanks,
mikeS
Oh I love this “It seems we have a natural tendency to seek agreement as movement away from dissonance and this is a natural tendency. However, dissonant notes have their place in any musical score, yet the inner drive is always toward consonance, agreement, merger. I admit I often play the role of a dissonant voice, however, I cannot deny the desire to find consonance. Yet, I do tend to deny consonance through platitudes since, for me, this has only become more dissonant. Unfortunately this makes me appear as consistently disagreeable.” - because it sounds so much like me!!!
I personally love the disonance and pointing to it, just as I did to this blog, but somehow it always is connected to the consonance and the whole. I AM pleasantly disagreable! Yep, I’d say that about myself. If we take away the tension of the two polar opposites, then would there be any movement toward anything? I think you are brilliant Mike. I love the way you even push my boundaries. I like those who push beyond any already set belief. Isn’t that what most of the “great masters” have done?
John, thanks for pointing me here. I shall henceforth seek to be pleasantly disagreeable more often, as I think it adds spice to relationships, and challenges me to know what the heck I mean when I say something. Also prompts me to openly question rather than judge, accept, or dismiss what others say when I don’t understand, or I suspect they don’t understand.
I tend not to be argumentative, preferring to just walk away if challenged, bored, or stuck watching a pingpong match between two people who are not listening to each other.
My time is not spent in pods at all here, and I have been away from blogs for a while too. I am thinking more about my face to face relationships. So Mike, this topic is one I needed to hear, and I took what I needed from it.
I shall muse in my corner more about consonance and dissonance. No, I shall observe and listen for the music in conversations now whenever I have a chance.
I completely disagree with everything that everyone has posted here.
[OK, a little late for April Fool!]
As a pod cultivator, the only time I've had to send someone's posts back to them, is when they insisted on a point that was not being agreed to. If two people disagree, there's a point beyond which each has the right to disengage. The other not disengaging is bullying. There are other spaces for that.
I'm curious why people who seek something not in a pod's guidelines would seek to join it. Definitely, the only reason for cultivators and moderators are to ensure the group stays on track,however wide and narrow they are defined to be. Like you, if I feel the pod's definition is too narrow, I don't join. I don't want to be stuck in their worldview. BUT I don't feel I have the right to join their pod to tell them that, either! Their worldview does not threaten mine.
There's a whole wide world of blogging out there! That's actually what i seek for us to share on Gaia Networking that Deb so generously pointed to, above. So that we can all co-exist in our separate spaces and learn to flow, dance, and stay away from each other, even though we choose to be in the same overall Gaia-space.
Mike, I wanted to ask you [as I seem to have become a fixture on your blogs for today- and I promise to read the one on ego as I've recently blogged abt that too] - this is such a useful blog with varied comments, can this please be linked to
Collective Wisdom: The Library of Community Threads
and
Community: Pain or Pleasure? on GN?
and…I'm really pushing it now,
Gaia Groups Community - “The Mod Pod” I hope you're a member?
There's a song in Hindi that all this reminds me of: it likens a mother to a tangy chutney - never know what flavor will come up!
Hello Meenakshi,
Thanks for reading my stuff and engaging with it.
“If two people disagree, there's a point beyond which each has the right
to disengage. The other not disengaging is bullying. There are other
spaces for that.”
Hmmm…I suppose this is situational and you have a bit more experience in these matters than I (recently started a pod myself). I suppose it would depend on the members. Personalities rage around here, so one's bullying is another's simply being assertive. I guess those things are tough calls to make
There's a whole wide world of blogging out there! That's actually what
i seek for us to share on Gaia Networking that Deb so generously
pointed to, above. So that we can all co-exist in our separate spaces
and learn to flow, dance, and stay away from each other, even though we
choose to be in the same overall Gaia-space.
“Coexist in our separate spaces”? With all due respect, that doesn't sit well with me. I don't want even the ones who might hate me to stay away from me. I don't think we have coexisted very well for thousands of years, if we ever have. I sense that evolved consciousness will eventually dissolve coexisting. maybe we will become 'inter-existing.' As I see it, separate spaces only support the separate ego-self in collusion with other egos against one another. However, I get your point and for now I suppose separate spaces and coexisting are necessary. Maybe Gaia should brainstorm something more improved and evolved.
Meenakshi, you may link this blog and comments to anything you want and i would be very pleased if you do. It's all about engagement and however that occurs, whether through disagreement or agreement (actually, I'm quite thankful to those wheo disagree and engage with me to get to the bottom of things) or whatever else, is A-OK with me.
Thanks,
mike
Thanks mike. Linked here
Pod Think? By mike S in Collective Wisdom
and on Gaia Networking.
I see your point on engaging vs coexisting and feel that there is a point beyond which there is more to be achieved by silent communication than wordy! Beyond going in circles of course, if both parties want to get dizzy!
See- that's another blog I wrote that I'm not sure how many read ;p
Mike,
Pod think?
Group think?
The last 40 years I witnessed these mechanisms in EVERY group I was part of. In F2F world too.
Personally I believe everybody offering his own deepest truth is the best waht can happen. Beyond consensus AND conflict. Dialectics in itself is limited. Every comecpet, paradigm, theory and framework is limited. So what?
Whats the name of the game? Driving the engine, while improving the maps and laying the railways.
I welcome there approaches like TSK, work of A. H: Almaas and dozens of genuine fingerprints with minimum of conceptual reference points.
I like suprises.
The real challenge for me is to connect deeply enough with ones core. To destruct creatively the patina of social, sexual, poltical and spiritual correctness without destroying my critical thinking. LOL…):)
I follow the flow of strong resonances and like mavericks. So every pod simply has its own fingerprint. Not more, not less.
Gaia.com in toto has it.
And every project, intitiative F2F between heaven, earth and hells have it too.):)
Isnt LIFE great?
Albert,
I agree and believe that particular egos are not so driven by ideological preferences, as it seems you are not. However, world history is testament to the collusion of egos under the banner of specific beliefs. For me, the micro is the macro and all our small world dynamics are visible in the big world. The big world leaves big fingerprints and continues to suffer from that.Maybe by exploring the ego dynamics of our little world, we can more adequately reduce big world problems.
Thanks,
mikeS