A Triune Theory of Behavior Fundamentals
Symbol of the Trinity by Gregorio Vasquez, 1680
Behavior change ranges from sweeping views of reality to specific paradigms, contracting and expanding from the individual locus to social mechanisms. As a biological process, perhaps because it IS a function of physical processes (eating, sleeping, energy, group dynamics, etc.), behavior change is messy, unpredictable, and chaotic yet it follows principles. Therapeutic modalities of modern psychology attempt to elucidate ordered processes of change, but the science suffers from tangential theories and egoic Causa Suis projects. Specialists overcomplicate reality to carve out niches for personal status and self-promotion. Learning therapeutic practice is fraught with transient data and ephemeral paradigms. However, there is a way of simplifying behavior change information for easier understanding using a processes-oriented philosophy of three action states.
I interject that the most simple explanation is often the most powerful and most useful. Far from tangential obfuscation, the goal here is to offer a useful, meaty coalescence of actionable ideas and complex sources distilled to a simple, memorable observation of principles that cut across ideas and practices to both describe and compel a fundamental change in action orientation. I believe the best way to complete this endeavor is by leveraging insights generated through heuristic processes spanning long periods of time.
Sacred Heuristics
First, some context for this idea. I consider the principles examined here to be the only three elements possessing scientifically proven therapeutic utility. It can also be said these are the only three elements which constitute being, as behavior and existence changing across time. This is an old idea, but past iterations are shrouded in veiled metaphorical states, preserved in esoteric and dogmatic forms of theology rather than overt scientific theory.
The subconscious understanding is to be expected. In the value hierarchy of the individual, the pinnacle assumptions (deepest truths) are set apart as sacred to the entity which sees the world through a milieu of belief, the map of the explored behavioral territory. Stories are pathways of action. When proven or disproven, these deeply held values are, to that consciousness, the most real things – the deepest joys, highest epiphanies, or traumatic distortions. Whether embodied in adherence to a faith tradition or identified by a reaction to trends (spirits) of the day being congruent or incongruent with felt reality, this map of behavioral pathways is personally and communally instantiated at the subconscious level of action. It is codified in the individual and the culture and therefore religious in nature.
Note that these principles are not based on religion but in the physical being's manifestations in conscious reality. Our knowledge of these elements has been passed down through our volatile past by religion and as religion yet they are the antecedents and not descendants of religion. I am not seeking to either defend nor minimize religion, but draw categorical utility from a physically defined ontology of being, as it was passed down through behavioral heuristics by the ancient process of sacred value. Heuristics generate wisdom – knowledge which has been time-tested by experience. These sacred ideas of being are then foisted upon the group after years of natural selective processes result in epiphany, and then are religiously propagated.
In this age of information, data propagation, and religious decay, embracing knowledge with insufficient experiential testing is appears to be driving therapeutic training programs forward into chaotic overload and contradicting paradigms separated from on-the-ground reality. My proposal is, therefore, in many ways, a framework that has helped maintain my own mental sanity through cognitive organization and yet remained robust or “antifragile” throughout experiential testing. It is a kinetic, philosophic view that respects ancient philosophic ideas where they appear scientifically correct and relevant, separate from any religious or educational dogma.
Sex and Gender
I will be speaking in the traditional language and primarily discussing western culture. Christianity postulates that God is a triune body of Father, Spirit, and Son, a merging of Meso-Egyptian mythology of family and Grecian Philosophia of ways of knowing. Yet for many of those born into Judeo-Christian traditions, family and identity questions are left unanswered. Does "Father" indicate “Spirit" is maternal? Why does the “Son” dominate? Why is there no daughter? Why is a masculine term used? What do these entities indicate about reality and my or “God’s” identity in a quantum universe?
Were Camille Paglia to take up the question, I expect she might suggest woman has always been "earth cult" chaos until recently and not part of the “sky cult” cultural order, which is comprised of men who have no womb. The archetypal elements of order/chaos, tyrant/monster, sky/earth, etc. open the question of ancient gender representations. Although they are important and interesting topics, they will obscure the antecedent sources of kinesthetic knowing, engaging the subject matter with a propositional, deconstructive viewpoint when the nature of this content is that which is embodied. Such questioning justly defends the value of the human vessel against past exploitations but at the cost of action-potential ideas, which is our current concern. That behavior or even objects can be assigned masculine and feminine categorizations across sexes is not indefensible nor is it incendiary, as each categorization has elemental patterns which apply to both sexes, and constructs of reduction sacrifice complexity somewhere by their very nature. Simple reductive explanations are not the most accurate, but they are the most memorable and therefore the most useful in comparison to constructs we have forgotten.
Individuals can embody the masculine and the feminine either separate from or attached to their movement with their own, individual biology. Therefore, I ask for grace in this discussion of behavior and the gender terms used. I regret not discussing these extremely interesting questions further and invite someone better read in depth psychology to do so.
Three Behavior Orientations
We have arrived at an explanation of the primary idea, a philosophy of three, action-oriented processes. The assertion is that we engage with reality at three fundamental levels. This is a result of our cognitive perspective, a mind bounded by a physical body and built to engage at the sensory level of knowledge and understanding – the two hemispheric realities, order and chaos, the known and the unknown. In the simplest form, we are allowed three states of sensory engagement with which to engage what we know and what we do not know. These three states show themselves across domains, complicating the idea somewhat, yet the principles align. Conceptualizations of these three states of being are as follows:
Actively, it is:
Intention towards (movement to achieve, action potential),
Presence (contact, experience, maintenance of a state),
Release from (movement to terminate, completion).
Philosophically, this is:
Grasping the cup,
Holding the cup,
Releasing the cup.
Note there is only one action phase, as a movement towards is always away from a previous state, but there are three states of intention when interacting in relationship to a single object. Action without intention is not possible for conscious beasts, so the state of being is better defined in relation to the object. We might say action is also part of triad – intention, rest, movement – but psychology is not so solipsistic, even defining the self dyadically as an object we have intention towards. Let’s expand to additional triads which align:
Structurally:
Intellect intends direction,
Emotion synergizes experience,
Will sacrifices possibilities, to an emotionally informed intellect – desire.
Internally, this is experienced as:
Intention,
Acceptance,
Judgment.
Religiously, and perhaps archetypally, this is represented as:
Son – Hero, Heir, or Prince/Princess;
Holy Spirit – Wisdom, Muses, Prophets, Healers;
Father – Patriarchy, Matriarchy, King and Queen.
In psychological theory, I consider these broadly to be:
goal/path oriented theories,
psychological safety embedded approaches,
boundaries, and conditions of letting go, changing direction, or refusing to permit.
Archetypes are useful in unpacking both internal processes and cyclical relationships. If we step outside the western theological trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we find Brahma the creator, Vishnu/Krishna the maintainer, and Shiva the destroyer (although I lack the requisite knowledge to discuss non-western religions further). We can see these concepts have common, underlying correlations which precede religion. Symbolic representation hides internal mechanics and are not as straightforward as the philosophical options, yet are more powerful.
We can also see these states as cyclical over time, even generational. Judgment precedes intentional action, just as a parent precedes a child; hierarchical paternalism limits action possibilities according to the order of value. We discriminate internally between possibilities with this judgment, narrowing options before selecting a direction for our intention. Action then embodies the will of this narrowed parental intention as a child enters into the external world with a particular aim. Action fosters resonance in others in accordance with the highest intention of the action, a noble or heroic “spirit.” Spirit reveals the quality of the intended action by measuring the state produced by relational outcomes (hence the "maternal” allocation of wisdom). This maternal heuristic, a combination of epistemological and experiential intelligence, then measures the individuals’ adherence to the “paternalistic” will, proving its quality through the emotional impact on the group, before the final parental, combined archetype ultimately integrates lessons by redirecting or pruning possibilities and restarting the cycle.
Spirit (Mother) represents the wellspring of Heroic action which moves in service to Father because heuristics inform our value hierarchies just as a feminine spirit informs, judges, and drives a masculine intention. In neurological terms, this might be the limbic system informing the conscious will to act, if supported by an ordered value hierarchy. We could also say the conscious frontal lobe informs the limbic neurochemical emotions to direct the action of the body – intention embodies will but acts by reinforcing emotions, yet only when we are present and not simply in stasis or at rest.
Archetypes
These ontological representations of movement from the individual locus can also be psychodynamically defined as embodied archetypes, as fundamental identity elements directing development stages and personality. This begins not with Son, but with the eternal aspect of ouroboric wisdom, that circular feeding, embodied existence, or Spirit. This is the presence of being, the original state at which we develop attachment and behavioral capabilities or become disordered and corrupted in our alignment with reality. It is our self-recognition, our value definitions, and our self-love. It requires vulnerability and acceptance and yields peace. It holds presence; it holds all things at all times. It is contained within the individual but measured by its resonance in others and refined through action. It is the state produced by the parental intention to sacrifice and let go of their former individualistic selves.
The second state of being is that of Son, the Hero(ine) who embodies generative action as the first self-directed manifestation of independent, self-contained will. The minimum quality is Prince(ess), the exit point is Savior. The hero is the robust conqueror who leverages action intention to leave the group for the purpose of exploring and confronting the chaos of the wilderness – the unknown – to foolishly face ego death and return to bestow value, insight, and wealth on the community. The hero is anti-fragile, submitting the self to chaos in order to refine wisdom, and is part of the systemic rejuvenation process when correctly developed by ordered society for the purpose of integrating change across the ages. The hero is not the hero until they sacrifice the self for knowledge and the greater good. Thus the hero is not fully the hero until surviving and emerging as the figurehead of will, the ruler elevated by the people, the paternal/maternal figure.
As we are a species diversified for role specialization, normative differences exist between the archetypes of the hero and heroine in a co-supportive relationship. The heroine archetypically (but not exclusively) possesses the ability to activate the masses, generate the future hero(ine), and counterbalance the betrayal of devouring femininity (the stories of The White Stag, Hansel and Gretel, etc.). The heroine also possesses the identities of the prophet, catalyst/muse, and healer in relationship to the prince, whom she identifies, catalyzes/inspires transformation to the hero, and heals when he falls. The prince is archetypically (but not exclusively) cached in the hierarchical culture of generating new knowledge, protecting the kingdom from unknown authoritarian threats, redirecting cultural values, and saving/awakening/satisfying the princess to ego integration (Golden Ball, Sleeping Beauty, etc.), thus preserving future generations while fomenting positive, ordered, future change.
The father, the progenitor who governs emergence, instantiation, and limitation presents objects to us for use but is also our final role. It is both noble Matriarchy, and Patriarchy. At this stage, one’s actions and discoveries rejuvenate the group and result in ascendancy to facilitation, requiring a release of all other unproductive ways of being. This is pruning oneself of realistically productive seeking activities with unrealized potential, establishing boundaries on behavior, and repressing all other possibilities within oneself except those which have been actualized. If done right, this is the individual who will foster the growth of the next hero, manage their exposure to chaos, and place everything at the feet of that hero, to be used and examined prior to developing intention within the archetypal cycle, i.e. the Father is pleased to elevate the Son and place everything beneath his feet. (Philippians 2:9, Philippians 2:9 etc.)
It is the heroic identity, therefore, which is the full embodiment of the other elements of behavior, the transforming heroic son/daughter who carries the knowledge of immortal and essential triune acceptance, intention, and sacrifice. It is precisely at the moment of self-sacrifice when the son’s presence yields identification with father and yet more than father, having toured the generative cycle and known the fundamental precepts which gave rise to the fullness of sacred transformation through both hierarchical, paternal order, and in the case of the daughter, generative maternal wisdom. Yet (s)he must embody both – if embodying only patriarchy or matriarchy¸ the hero(ine) will be a tyrant of rigid facilitation or a monster of uncontrolled, power rooted not in the presence of spirit but in rumination about the past or the anxiety about the future.
Psychological Application
Refined to modern values, each archetype contains an ordering principle of action for individual intention cached in its impact on others. Here we can reference Dr. J. B. Peterson’s action construct (2012, INPM’s Conference on Personal Meaning) to convert chaotic potential to ordering value:
the Son, the Hero, must consciously “aim at their best self,” even to the loss of self;
the Spirit must “tell the truth clearly and concisely” in the affective service of love;
and the Father, the Patriarch/Matriarch, must willfully “let go of what is no longer necessary for being” in order to become the fostering agent of the next developing wave.
Reversing order, these are the essential tools that are, in Nietzsche’s terms, wrapped in values as follows:
Paternal Will-to-Power through Faith,
Spiritual Dionysian offer of Love, and
Ubermensch’s active embodiment of Hope.
Importantly for coaching and therapeutic approaches, these three elements are the only things that have a measurable impact within psychology. Where anything else works, it works precisely because it leverages these things. They are the nature of Logos itself, of being itself, and therefore the only golden thread to pull and produce a transformational change. Defined in the research, they are more specifically the elements of goal/path theories, psychological safety approaches, and the often undefined yet ubiquitous and essential conditions of letting go, changing direction, or refusing to permit – Boundaries as identified Dr. Henry Cloud’s work, among others.
While all psychological theories work by our present theory, some embody various elements more fully than others. Rogerian psychology embraces the spirit of psychological safety, ignoring both judgment and actions, trusting pure acceptance and holding of presence (the cup) to motivate and inform the appropriate grasping or releasing of the cup. Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Adlerian Therapy function on the termination of behavioral ideas, beliefs, and patterns that are incongruous with reality, disputing irregularities for the purpose of release. This removes impediments to action and reforms the value hierarchy to free (undetermined) action. Even Logotherapy rests on this function, drawing out meaning to eliminate competing values, often leveraging functions of heroic intention towards others. Strategic therapy, coaching, counseling, and motivational interviewing rely on clarifying intention to produce action, that old hero of goal-path theory. Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, and Jungian Analysis leverage the hero in the analyst to reveal dysfunctional behavioral patterns and dissolve obstacles truncating optimal action in the client being served.
Dysfunctional paradigms in psychology can be further defined along these same lines. Attachment issues essentially deal in negative and positive, attenuation and depreciation of relational interactions. The individual struggles to maintain presence (secure attachment) and errs on the side of too much intention (anxious) or too much release (avoidant). Psychopathology assessment can be seen from this perspective as well, as is demonstrated by Ernest Becker in The Denial of Death regarding the courage to act, be present, or let go. Most disorders experience an improper relationship with action and release; the balance is upset. The initial solution to trauma or difficult circumstances becomes the eventual problem. For example, depression and anxiety share too little action with fear of release, corrupting the ability to maintain presence. Cluster A experiences a share disordered relationship with presence. Manic states and Cluster B disorders share too much action orientation. Cluster C disorders have a disordered relationship with loss which corrupts intention. Bipolarity cycles between states of too much or too little action.
The patterns also apply to the psychotherapist. As the facilitating party, we leverage our intention to maintain an appropriate presence while releasing unhelpful thoughts, emotions, ideas, and distractions within ourselves. To us, the client is the cup and holding is the prerequisite for all action. Then to varying degrees, according to preferred interventions, we aid the client in purifying or clarifying their intention, emotional presence, and ability to release. It is, by older definitions, a sacred act of spirit.
Daily Utility
While perhaps tangential to a conversation about philosophical archetypes, application to our daily behavior is essential for those who endeavor to build, create, produce, and change the world around them. From business to family, the metaphor effectively applies these principles to individual and collective work, from family roles to personal choices. The key is in the right question.
Personally, what do I want to happen in my life, and what am I doing to make that happen? What do I want people to feel around me? What am I doing which seems to have no benefit? Professionally, what areas of business require action, focus, or termination? What daily tasks are being impeded by an unwillingness to grasp opportunities or an unwillingness to release failed projects? What areas of unexplored opportunities await our intentional investigation? What present applications of our business are we neglecting, and what projects simply require us to maintain active support, presence, or interest to continue? What needs to be terminated to provide space for growth or change to the environment? In simplest terms, what do we need to move towards, to maintain, or to release? Familially, what are my roles and tasks? What are others’ experiences of my presence and what culture do I cultivate? What issues are the decisions and tasks of other family members and therefore only mine to release?
Closure
It seems plausible to me that heuristic processes have passed these archetypal ideas down, being best embodied in a revered, sacred context served by religious dogma. Traditional ideas clearly root in my mind of Faith, Hope, and Love or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, I am romanced by Nietzsche's assessment of Ubermensch, Will-to-Power, and Dionysus, as well as Peterson’s insights, to “aim at your best self, speak the truth in love, and let go of that which is no longer necessary for being.” I find these concepts all stack neatly and reveal felt problems with theories that have “release" and “presence" as tenants but discard the call forward into purposeful, proper, meaningful action. One cannot hold the cup nor let it go unless it is first taken up; that object which is received by happenstance rarely forms a productive relationship of utility.
