Possible Qualities in Defining an Integral Relationship

[Lovers]

Over at the Integral Relationships pod at Zaadz, we've been tossing around some ideas as to how we might define the rather abstract idea of an integral relationship. Here are a few of the traits we've identified so far:

(1) Trying to work on several levels at once -- essentially having some form of integral practice.
(2) Trying to communicate between levels, in the ways that are possible.
(3) Awareness of and ability to manage different selves.
(4) Ability to take the role of the partner during conflict. It's easier to do this when everything is good, but a true mark of development is to be able to do it during conflict.
(5) Ability to experience trans-egoic states during intimacy (not just sex, but other forms of intimate bonding as well).
(6) Honoring the four drives of a holon: the need for agency, communion, eros (which would be progress in the relationship… you know, trascending and including wherever you've already made it to), and agape (which would be lovingly conserving what has already been built).

The reference to levels in numbers one and two refers to the various stages of development as outlined by Ken Wilber, Beck & Cowan, or others. The reference to selves in number three refers to subpersonalities or "parts."

These are merely preliminary proposals as offered by at least three different people. I'm thinking that the exercise posted below might offer a seventh criteria: the ability to experience oneself as love rather than merely being the recipient of love.

What do you think? Is there anything you would add here or take away?


Technorati Tags: Integral Relationship, Definitions, Relationships, Love, Levels, Stages, Subpersonalities, Ken Wilber, Beck & Cowan