I’ve noticed lately that I really haven’t had much to write about it. Part of it I think is because I’ve been quite busy with other projects, but I think the bigger reason is that many of my fundamental assumptions about the way reality works have come into question. I’ve found that it’s kind of difficult to write things when I’m beginning to question the very way that I had been approaching almost everything. With that in mind I figured I’d share a little bit of what that process has been like.
I couple months ago I began engaging in Robert Kegan’s ((For those of you who don’t know about Robert Kegan, he is a developmental psychologist at Harvard university who has been studying adult development for over two decades. His last book, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life is a great introduction to his developmental theory.)) Immunity to Change process, which is designed to unearth hidden “core assumptions” related to one’s current “order of consciousness” (a fancy way of saying “development”). Once these core assumptions are surfaced one begins a process of testing these assumptions, first with small tests and then with larger ones. The tests are meant to reveal data about whether or not those assumptions are true. And if they aren’t, then they allow one to loosen their grip on said assumptions.
In my own case, I unearthed several very interested assumptions. Some of them I was already starting to become aware of, and so wasn’t that surprised by—though I will say that seeing them in writing for the first time did kind of surprise me. But there was one in particular that really knocked me over. And it was that, “I should be able to resolve all paradoxes and contradictions that I encounter.”
For at least a few years now, I’ve had it as one of my main aims to take in as much information as possible. The information itself comes not only from reading or taking in other media, but also from direct experience: from interesting discussions, and from all sorts of practices (psychological, spiritual, and otherwise). As a result I’ve “learned” more and more and have really built up quite a robust model about the way things are. I always considered that this model was dynamically evolving, and that by running into paradoxes and contradictions I’d be able to learn from them and integrate (or perhaps a better word would be “assimilate”) them into this constantly growing model. When I tell many of my closest friends this (hey guys!) they say, “Oh, yeah that makes perfect sense buddy.”
Then I tell them that, as a result of unearthing this assumption, I’m now starting to question this entire approach. Should I really be able to resolve (or integrate) all of these disparate pieces of information? Often their interest is piqued, and I think like me, they begin to question (perhaps for the first time) this approach to reality. I haven’t completely finished with this process, and I still have much difficult work to do, to see where it leads. But for the first time, I’ve started to see that resolving paradox and creating an ever-evolving model of reality might not be the best (or at least only reasonable) approach to reality.
I don’t know is, but I am committed to following this thread of inquiry and to do my best to see where Kegan’s method takes me. I have a feeling it’s going somewhere important, if only because I see some of my deepest held assumptions crumbling down around me. It isn’t pleasant, and it isn’t winning me any friends at the moment, but what else can I do?
