At the end of the Psychosynthesis International Conference in San Diego in 1997, many of us walked to a microphone at the front of the room and took responsibility for taking action in some arena of importance to psychosynthesis. I promised to do something to create and support an inclusive, nonjudgmental context for dialogue about our differences in style, temperament and interpretation of psychosynthesis theory and practice. This essay is my beginning.

The lively events at the opening of the Conference gave us a good look at some of the ongoing shadow aspects in our community. For those who weren't there, my view of what happened is that our opening guest speaker gave a talk many felt was not a respectful reflection of the style or spirit of psychosynthesis. Some who were most offended by the talk voiced their opinions in a charged fashion. Others, who had not been offended by the speaker, were now offended by the feedback, and offered their opinions about that in a charged fashion. Not until our grandmother of love and forgiveness, Edith Stauffer, walked slowly, gracefully up to the podium to remind us all to see the beauty and take what was good, did the energy in the room coalesce and enable us to move forward. This will surely go down in our history as one of the most unique conference openings ever.

During that dramatic discussion, somebody said, to bolster their position that their response to the speaker was more correct, "I'm not a novice" (meaning I presume, not a psychosynthesis novice). Somebody then responded, "That sure sounds like a novice comment to me." These statements present in a microcosm a macro shadow concern for our community. It's that "I know what psychosynthesis is and you don't" thing.

Who among us are the experts ... more experienced, more evolved, more psychosynthetic than others? What if we don't agree about who these folks are, nor the criteria by which they are officially or unofficially selected? How do we differentiate between personality type differences and theoretical disagreements? And how can we create a context in which even apparent theoretical incompatibility can be addressed tenderly, appreciating the facet each differing view radiates of the psychosynthesis diamond?

Let's start with our personality/style differences. Obviously, everyone has different talents, temperaments, ways of organizing experience and different defensive patterns. Roberto Assagioli addressed this in Seven Psychological Types: elucidating differences in core temperaments based on qualities like love, will, creativity, etc. The Enneagram and astrological charts similarly open doors for increased understanding of human diversity. Even corporations are learning to make constructive use of individual differences with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

The Seven Psychological Types, Enneagram, Astrology and the MBTI are all antidotes for the mind's tendency to categorize differences on right/wrong scales--effective extensions of the "I'm OK, You're OK" sensibility. While it's relatively easy to let go of our judgments about type characteristics like love or will, extroversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, etc.; the real challenge comes when we look specifically at differences in defensive patterns.

We know we all adopt different defenses to help us survive the tragedy of childhood. These defensive patterns, along with the inherent separativeness of ego structures, contribute to our "shadow" behaviors. Sometimes we get really reactive to people whose defensive style reminds us subconsciously of aspects of ourselves we don't like, haven't accepted. Other times we get plugged in by people whose style reminds us consciously or subconsciously of people who have wounded us in earlier years. Whenever we're reactive, we can be guaranteed we are not seeing ourselves or the person who triggered our reaction clearly.

Our introductory speaker had personality and defensive patterns that pushed some buttons. I could easily see myself in him. My shadow aspects are intrusive, controlling, maternalistic. I've been working for years to transform, transmute and finally accept myself including these qualities. I could also see and appreciate the speaker's good-natured enthusiasm, his attempts to get us connecting, and his lack of defensiveness as he graciously accepted negative feedback.

This speaker didn't remind me of anyone from my childhood. He was nothing like my parents, brother, aunts or uncles--a cool, waspy group (except for me!). Good thing he wasn't a cold, distant, arrogant, woman. Whew boy, that would have been trouble!

I believe people who are more emotional and fiery tend toward shadow defenses like intrusion and control, whereas people who are more mental and icy tend to use defenses like distancing and arrogance. Is one of these shadow patterns more psychosynthetic than another? Fire and ice can both be used for hurting or healing. The fact that we are more comfortable with some defensives and shadows than others does not make them or us more or less evolved--just different.

One of the antidotes I've developed for my own judgmental reactiveness is whenever I'm furious at someone, I intentionally call up awareness of all the ways I know I am infuriating. I don't do this to stop myself from expressing my feelings, rather to create a context of humility and compassion for my feedback--a kind of, "You're not OK and (I can be compassionate about that because) neither am I" tool to accompany that handy "I'm OK, You're OK" strategy.

What about our theoretical differences? We are currently in the midst of an important dialogue in the psychosynthesis community about the nature of Self with respect to Immanence and Transcendence. While our opening speaker's personality didn't upset me, his leap onto the transcendence bandwagon raised my theoretical hackles. It was regrettable that at a tumultuous time when we are searching for clarity and common ground, this speaker was not aware of the different currents raging and flowing among us. That said, weren't his slides magnificent, visionary--the best of Transcendence?

In preparing this essay, I reviewed a letter which I had sent to a number of psychosynthesis trainers at the height of a serious community conflict: "I have experienced a sense of righteousness and blame in subtle and not so subtle manifestation concerning the concept of "protecting the purity" of the psychosynthesis thoughtform. This concept has always been incongruous, for me, with the major thrust of psychosynthesis theory and the principles of the guiding process... The assumption seems to be that there is only One Truth, One Good/Right way to do or think about anything... This doesn't reflect what my own experience continually demonstrates; that truth is found in process, interaction..."

What is the harm of creating theoretical spaciousness--viewing each emerging adjustment to our canon as part of an evolving, multifaceted yet unitary thought system? People could associate themselves with the ideas which most closely reflect their way of organizing experience and keep on dialoging. Isn't this what is happening in the psychosynthesis community anyway? Much more fun if we choose it as it is--grateful for the opportunity each theoretical gift or challenge offers us to stretch and grow.

In 1986 I spent a year creating a videotape series, "Session as Sacrament," which I intended to be my gift to psychosynthesis theory and practice. I sent it to the leaders I most respected in psychosynthesis and eagerly awaited feedback. Though a few influential people appreciated what I had done, some of the leaders I most admired found it highly objectionable and told me so in no uncertain terms. I was traumatized.

I looked at the tape over and over. I could see the truth of their criticisms and I felt ashamed and humiliated. They said, "This is not psychosynthesis." I decided not to offer the tape to the larger community and put it in my closet. I learned enormous lessons about: purifying my motivation, recognizing my unconscious attempts to control, the necessity for feedback at all stages of a project, and my own ability to survive. These were valuable lessons. They help me today. What I did not learn, wasn't helped to learn then, was to see the true value in what I had offered, flawed though it was.

Grief arises as I recall this. Even though I now know I am good enough, these are still tender places. Is it possible to be authentically supportive with each other, without losing our clarity or ability to discriminate? The criticism leveled at my tape was needed. The charged delivery, along with the inability to see or encourage the creativity and beauty of my offering, was not helpful.

What would it be like if we could bring to our organizational, collegial relationships the same qualities we bring to our guiding-faith in what's emerging, trust in the process, appreciation for individuality, gratitude for partnership, and deep, nourishing humility? Heavenly!

At the end of that first evening at our Conference, I was filled with optimism for the future of psychosynthesis. There is so much consciousness, love, and will in us. That roiling meeting was empowering, real. People were speaking out about issues, taking risks. We need this fire, this ardor as much as we need to ice our strains with responsible, disidentified communication. We need our hearts open, tender and the continual awareness that we're all in this together. Looking for the beauty, as we face the darkness in each other, will help shine a way through our shadows.

Penelope Young Andrade, L.C.S.W., is founder of the San Diego Center for Psychosynthesis and host of Transformational Talk Radio on KKSM AM 11320 in San Diego. She has had 30 years experience integrating the best of traditional and bodymind therapies. Penelope is the author of several articles including: "Right Feeling: Doorway to Transformation," "Family of Origin: Land of Opportunity for Transpersonal Therapy," and "Let the Body Lead." She can be reached at penart@abac.com