Question: Integrating Spiritual Identities?

Written by Chris Dierkes

chakra

Sr. Vanessa left this comment to an earlier post of mine on The Soul:

My curiosity is in the last lines of your piece where you say,

[Chris wrote] "I don’t define the individual solely as the egoic personality, but yes the Soul and the ego (as I understand it) run on parallel and non-intersecting tracks (to borrow an image from Andrew Cohen). The ego and The Soul have different experiences, different drives, different self-identities, different agendas. In fact, the same thing could be said of all three identities in relation to each other: SPIRIT, Soul, and ego."

[Vanessa] I'm wondering then, considering this premise, if the ego, soul and spirit can every be "integrated." Integrated seems to be a big and hot word in integral and new age spiritual circles and I think it can create a kind of mush effect... How do you see us holding all these three distinct realms and integrating them in our practice? Or do you think they can be integrated in the way we traditionally think of the word?

I think this is a really crucial question, so thank to Vanessa for raising it.

In one sense no I don't think the voices are integrated in the sense that they all combine into some super-voice or that we simply split the difference ("mush" in Vanessa's words). The distinction of each voice I think really needs to be maintained.

On the other hand, I think there is a way I think in which by getting in touch with the different voices/identities, we begin to hold a space where all three can increasingly be brought into awareness (while maintaining their difference). In that space there is choice as to which voice/identity is appropriate for which moment and which kind of spiritual practice focuses on which voice/identity.

In The Big Mind Process, they talk about an Apex voice that includes and transcends. e.g. If you have the voice of no desire (nirvana) on one side and desire (samsara) on the other, then perhaps there is an Apex that includes both while yet being larger than them both (this is the Apex, a space of Awareness).

In that sense, I believe there is a Fourth Voice, if you like, that can see Spirit, Soul, and Ego and yet isn't them. It doesn't nullify the distinction of each voice, but does begin to open up the possibility to begin to increasingly be all three and then inter-relate in that space. If that's what we mean by integration, then I'm fine with that term. Though I don't think that's what people normally mean by the term (as per Vanessa's question).

In other words, I don't believe integration happens in that sense by 33.333% Soul, 33.333% Spirit, and 33.333% ego. I don't think it's about some perfect harmonization. I think (at minimum) it's really about basic capacity in and awareness of each voice. People will probably have tendencies towards one or other of the voices, but I think it's necessary to be familiar with all three.

Tagged under

integral spirituality

Latest from Chris Dierkes

Related items

More in this category: « Integral Spiritual Experience: Journal 4 Integral Spiritual Experience: Journal 5 »

Join the Discussion

Commenting Policy

Beams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy

3 comments

Comment Link Wednesday, 05 January 2011 07:10 posted by D Fisher
That resonates with my sense, thanks Chris.
I think it is an important point because I find the word "integration" can sometimes have a bit of a flatland feel to it and can cause distinctions to get lost. This seems to potentially lead to either overly transcending, overly descending, or just plain stagnant spiritual paths...
Good to tease that apart and keep distinctions in mind...
Comment Link Wednesday, 05 January 2011 18:39 posted by Jeff Bellsey
Yessssssss!

Great point, great question.

So...what part of the self is the one becoming aware of these three parts of the self?

Andrew Cohen speaks about the "choosing faculty," which is what I think you're describing as the "fourth voice." It's not as prominent in his teaching as it probably should be. It's the part that is aware of the other three parts that you named Soul, Spirit, and Ego. As we become more awake to what's happening in those three parts, we're able to make freer and more wholesome choices. Any degree of out-of-touch-ness leaves our actions at the mercy of shadow and/or pure luck.

I fear that this part of the self is often mislabeled the "witness." I think that is only one of its functions...if we include *choice* as its other function, it changes your experience of self in a very healthy way.
Comment Link Wednesday, 05 January 2011 19:15 posted by Chris Dierkes
Jeff,

Excellent point. I hadn't made the connection between that 4th voice and The Choosing Faculty in Andrew's teaching. I was never quite sure I got Choosing Faculty before, but that helps clarify and locate/comprehend it a little bit better. Thanks.

In terms of The Witness again I think you are right to add the point of choice. My sense of The Witness is more that it "feels" everything. It's less a "seeing-Witness" and more a "feeling-Witness." More like an empath, so to me that notion of choosing fits better with a Feeling sense rather than a kind of neutral, impassive Watcher.