Patterns of T-S-K
December 9th, 2006
I’m posting this here because it is a little outside the scope of the current week’s topic. I read the remainder of the “Orientation” in SDTS that is assigned for this week’s unit and came across a passage that has fascinated me.
“Could this analysis into levels help us understand some of the obstacles we encounter as human beings? If there are three levels for time, space, and knowledge, this gives nine levels in all, and if these levels can interact with one another in different ways, this gives twenty-seven possible combinations. Could we analyze our own experience in terms of such patternings? For instance, if an individual has a second-level orientation toward space but a first-level way of interacting with time and knowledge, what characteristic issues and attitudes will manifest? What might be a good approach to opening up the patterns that this combination tends to introduce? Studying these patterns, can we see likely places of weakness or confusion? Can we see where experience will be most intensive, or most stuck, and how it might be possible to ‘re-pattern’ a given patterning? If there are twenty-seven patterns, are there also twenty-seven different ways of studying TSK?” (SDTS, p. xxxiv)
Has anyone attempted to build on this suggestion? Do you think such a “mapping” would be useful? As a student of Integral Theory and AQAL (all-quadrants, all-lines), which contains sophisticated ways to map the dynamics of human growth and behavior, I am curious about the potential of this TSK “psychograph” and how it might interface with other similar models. (Recognizing, of course, the limitations of models, while also not discounting their value as luminous gestures of knowledge).
Best wishes,
Bruce
Entry Filed under: time-space-knowledge
17 Comments Add your own
1. jackp | December 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Hi Bruce,
It’s only fair to report that I don’t know anyone who’s worked with this.
In a way, the identification of 27 levels seems to me artificial, because it’s hard to imagine that someone with a third-level orientation to (let’s say) time would have a first-level orientation to space. But I do see potential for identifying people who find it easier to move into second-level kinds of experience with respect to one facet of the vision than another.
Taken in this more restricted way, this reminds me of the discussion in LOK of how to work with the book if you are naturally drawn more to time, space, or knowledge.
Best wishes,
Jack
2. Robert Alderman | December 29th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Hi, Jack, thanks for your response. I had the same question: Is it really possible to experience first-level space while having realized a third-level view of time or knowledge? It seemed doubtful to me, but I was open to hearing possible explanations for it or examples of it.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this, but Wilber talks about 25 different levels and experiences of time and space, if I recall correctly. I had planned to explore this in relation to the 27 variations Rinpoche suggests. Maybe it’s still worthwhile…
Best wishes, and Happy New Year,
Bruce
3. Robert Alderman | December 29th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Hi, Jack,
Thank you for your response. I had the same question: Is it really possible to experience first-level space while having realized a third-level view of time or knowledge? It seemed doubtful to me, but I was open to hearing possible explanations for it or examples of it.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this, but Wilber talks about 25 different levels and experiences of time and space, if I recall correctly. I had planned to explore this in relation to the 27 variations Rinpoche suggests. Maybe it’s still worthwhile…
Best wishes, and Happy New Year,
Bruce
4. Pavlos | June 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
interesting
5. Thaddaios | June 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Interesting…
6. Charalampos | June 13th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Interesting…
7. Efstathios | July 9th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Nice…
8. Solon | July 9th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Cool…
9. Leonidas | July 9th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
interesting
10. Demetri | July 10th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Cool…
11. Panagiote | July 10th, 2007 at 3:34 am
Nice!
12. Theodoros | July 10th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Interesting…
13. Christodoulos | July 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Sorry :(
14. Idetrorce | December 15th, 2007 at 5:27 am
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
15. Christopher McLean | December 25th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I’ve acquainted myself with the TSK vision superficially over the years, and I’m only now paying closer more integrated attention to the practice, wich the result that now I”m getting what Rinpoche means by the levels. So, this time I noticed as I sunk into the work that I’ve been paying much, much more conscious attention to ’space’ over the years than I have to time. I’ve certainly had to step out of ordinary ‘time’ and get interested in (what Rinpoche calls) the second level, but I can see that I haven’t been getting the most out of ’space’ because I haven’t given sufficient attention to ‘time.’
16. David Filippone | December 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Yes Christopher, I think I understand what you mean. Years ago my focus too was on space (emptiness then) without exploring time (form) and their co-appearance. Not that I’m not grateful for what was revealed back then, for I certainly am, but TSK has provided me with such a rich vehicle for continuous exploration of both.
My sympathies are with you for your loss.
David
17. Christopher McLean | January 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
Dear David,
One reason that I didn’t appreciate the dynamics of Time was that I was appreciating/feeling into the mere fact of the amazing truth that stillness (space) moves.
Warmly,
Christopher.
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed