More Thoughts on Integral Compatibility

I want to highlight one of the implications of the model I suggested for Integral Compatibility. It suggests that relationships gain when both parties grow in levels of psycho-spiritual development.

Let us consider two people with average compatibility in type, state, lines and quadrants. Thus, their score on these would be 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 5. If they are both at the Traditional level of development, their total compatibility is 5. If they are both at the Modern level of development, their total compatibility is 7.5. If Pluralist, 10. If Integral 12.5. Both parties gain from the relationship when each advances in psycho-spiritual development.

Now consider how an excellent relationship benefits from psycho-spiritual development. Here the base score of type, state, lines and quadrants is much higher: 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 10. If they are both at Traditional, their overall score is 10. If Modern, 15. If Pluralist, 20. If Integral, 25!

Thus, in addition to having basic compatibility, psycho-spiritual growth adds dimensions to already good relationships that parties may never have realized were possible!

The moral here is that psycho-spiritual development makes all things better. It makes average relationships good, and it makes good relationships great.

Lalia

Thoughts on Integral Compatibility

I have pondered the mysteries of compatibility, whether in friendships, business relationships or sexual relationships. My long-time bias has been towards understanding types and their compatibility. But finally I have arrived at viewing compatibility in a much more complex way. Below is a provisional model of Integral Compatibility.

Let’s start with the understanding that this is a model, which I’ve expressed mathematically. Think of compatibility as an overlap in space. The greater the volume of overlap, the more compatible individuals are with one another.

My favorite measure of compatibility is Type . Using the enneagram as your typology, and knowing your specific type, we would indicate compatibility as follows: 3 points for types that are on either side of your type. That would be, if you are a Type 3, a +3 points for the other person being either a Type 2 or a Type 4. Add +2 if the other person is across the enneagram from you, that is (for a Type 3) Types 7 or 8. Add +1 point if the other person is your same type, or your stress or flow type—that is, Type 3 with Types 3, 6 and 9. Add +½ point if the other person is one of the two remaining types; for Type 3 this is Types 1 and 5.

Moving on to States, add one point for each state that both parties consciously, deliberately share. For most people, this will only be the gross, physical state. For those not used to the concept of state experience, we each exist and perceive gross, subtle, causal and non-dual states. However, most of us only have voluntary competence in the gross state. I suspect that many couples add on a second shared state (most likely subtle) by the use of drugs or alcohol. This is only a temporary asset to compatibility, and not recommended.

Lines of development add more compatibility. Add one point, with a maximum of three possible, for each significant personal line of development common to the other party. Lines of development could include items such as the following: same college degrees, same profession, same religion and religious commitment, and other items of personal mastery that are important to both parties. If both are masters of the same line, but one does not value this line, it is not part of the compatibility equation.

Quadrant bias: add one point for each shared quadrant perspective. Thus, if both parties share a focus on the interior-individual quadrant, valuing dreams, meditation, spiritual experiences, than this is +1. If both parties value the physical self, through extensive personal fitness, nutrition, exercise, athleticism, and so forth, +1. If both value infrastructure and systems of group interaction, add +1. If both value a shared cultural bias, add +1.

At this point, you have a compatibility score for any two people which is the sum of scores for Type, State, Line and Quadrant compatibilities. Now we will look at the levels of development.

Consider the normal level of development for adults in the country where parties live. For the United States this would be the Traditional level of development. (Also known as the Blue meme, or Amber meme.) If both parties share this, add +1. Add + 0.5 for each additional level they share above Traditional. Thus, if one party is at Modern, and the other at Pluralist, add +1 for their shared Traditional, and +0.5 for their shared Modern, or +1.5. Only add additional points if both parties share that meme. If one or both parties are not up to Traditional, then only allot them +½ point.

Now, multiply the Level score times the combined scores for type, state, line and quadrant.

Several examples to illustrate this compatibility:

Person A, who is an enneagram type 9, gross state, many lines of development, functions in all four quadrants and is at integral development, with:

Person B, who is an enneagram type 3, gross and subtle states, many lines of development, functions in two quadrants and is at pluralist development.

A and B compatibility: 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 multiplied by 2 to get a compatibility score of 14. (We got the first 1 from type, the second 1 from state, the 3 from shared lines, and the 2 from shared quadrant perspectives.)

Person C is an enneagram type 5, with gross and subtle states, multiple lines of development (2 shared with A), integral development and two quadrants.

Person A with person C: 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 7 multiplied by 2.5 (shared traditional, modern, pluralist and integral development) to get a score of 17.5.

Person D is an enneagram type 6, with gross state, fewer lines of development (1 shared with A, two quadrant bias, and Traditional development.

Person A with person D: 1+ 1 + 1 + 2 = 5, multiplied by 1 gives a score of 5.

Person E is an enneagram type 1, gross state, several lines of development (2 shared with person D), and one quadrant bias. This person is at the Warrior stage of development.

Person D with Person E: 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 6 multiplied by ½ as one person, E, is not up to the cultural norm, gives a score of 3.

This may seem too mathematical to some readers, but it indicates the importance of personal levels of development, and how they can hugely affect the perceived compatibility of any two people. It also explains the relatively shallow nature of most relationships as viewed by people who are at integral development, or higher. Fairly minimal compatibility becomes important when both parties are highly developed. And conversely, large compatibility (of type, states, lines and quadrants) does not mean much if the developmental levels of the parties are below the norms for their social matrix.

Lalia Wilson

Integral Sexual Ethics: Notes on Baratta's Thesis

Emily Ann Baratta posted her MA Thesis, dated December 2010, online. I have reviewed the 179 page document. Here are some thoughts about this groundbreaking work.

I begin by applauding Baratta’s courage to pioneer this controversial topic with new insights. Her work may serve to reduce suffering in the world. I particularly lift up her courage in the amount of first person accounting she gave to indicate her personal expertise and bias regarding the topic. The book is about ethics and Baratta indicates that she is an Enneagram Type One, the enneagram type that focuses on ethics!

Baratta primarily focuses on three levels of development, pre-Conventional, Conventional and post-Conventional. These broadly indicate Tribal & Warrior, Traditional, and Modernist & Pluralist memes. Someone new to the integral worldview would probably write a whole thesis just on the levels of development as they apply to sexuality, but Baratta continues to other topics. First, though, a brief summary of why the distinctions of pre-C, Conventional and post-C are important. Pre-Conventional people are likely to be younger as well as more impulsive in their sexual behavior. That is, more impulsive because of youth in addition to more impulsive because they lack the Conventional morality that would likely restrain some of their sexual impulses. Conventional people have very strict ideas of sexual behavior and attempt to follow them. Post-conventional people are familiar with social conventions, are able to restrain themselves, and are free to choose their individual sexual mores. Baratta refers several times to Ken Wilber’s pre-post fallacy, in which the sexual freedom of both groups can be wrongly seen as the same phenomenon. (Wilber’s pre-post fallacy includes many ways the two are mistaken for each other, not just in matters of sexual behavior.)

Much of Baratta’s thesis speaks in terms of first person versus second person versus third person sex. First person sex is sexuality only from the perspective of one view: masturbation or using another’s body as a form of masturbation. There are things one can learn from these practices, and altered states attainable, but first person sex is not ideal for most people. Second person sex means that both (all) parties having sex are aware of and considerate of the interiority of the other person (s) as well as themselves. Third person sex looks at some of the social implications of sexuality. Baratta discusses pregnancy, abortion and STDs at some length. To me, more needs to be said about the social implications, but I will address that later.

One new perspective was Baratta indicating that those practicing BDSM (and likely other kinks) are seeking an altered state experience, many instead of orgasm. This makes sense in some ways. Baratta mentions Jenny Wade’s groundbreaking book Transcendent Sex, which lifted up the powerful, frequently unspoken, altered state experiences that many have spontaneously had while engaging in sex. I have read Wade’s book, and discussed it with several Integral groups. I also have had altered state experiences while engaged in sex. However, my bias is clearly in favor of orgasm as the expected outcome of sex, with any altered state as a bonus.

In Baratta’s discussion of third person sex she indicates directions for public policies. I would like to see this conversation carried much further, either by Baratta or by other pioneers who will bring an Integral view to this vexing social problem. To me, much suffering happens in Conventional America due to so few legitimate outlets for the creative and pleasurable forces of sexuality. As a society do we wish to perpetuate this suffering? Make it a requirement that all public figures be conventional or non-sexual in order to hold high offices?

I would like to see a lessening of public condemnation of sexual behaviors of public figures, which is not to say all sexual behaviors are honorable or suitable for public consumption. However to forever disqualify individuals who have active sex lives, in which their partner(s) are treated as individuals of worth and dignity, from all public life is unreasonable. Is not the public also caught in the morality play of a conventional bias and confusing pre-conventional sexual misbehavior with post-conventional sexual ethics?

Lalia Wilson