A Triune Theory of Behavior Fundamentals
Symbol of the Trinity by Gregorio Vasquez, 1680
Behavioral change ranges from sweeping views of reality to specific paradigms, contracting and expanding from the individual locus to social group processes. It is messy because people rely on physical processes (eating, sleeping, energy, group dynamics, etc.). This makes behavior change unpredictable and chaotic, yet it follows principles. Psychotherapy attempts to extract these change processes and place them into an understandable order, but this science suffers from tangential theories and ego projects. Specialists overcomplicate reality to carve out niches for personal status and self-promotion (Causa Sui projects). Learning to practice psychotherapy is further complicated by conflicting data that support short-lived trends. However, there is a way of simplifying behavior change using a simple philosophy of three action states.
The most simple explanation is often the most powerful and most useful. That is the goal of this article, to offer a useful, meaty union of actionable ideas distilled from complex sources into a simple, memorable principle. (I believe this cuts across ideas and practices to both describe and compel a change in action. (Far from tangential obfuscation, the best way to do that is through leveraging insights generated by heuristic processes.) I believe this idea cuts across concepts and practices to both describe and compel a change in action.
Religious 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 that these are the only three elements that constitute being, represented by existence and behavior across time. The idea is old, with past iterations shrouded in the veiled metaphorical states of theology, the outpouring of the subconscious preserved in esoteric forms of dogma rather than scientific theory.
The subconscious understanding is to be expected. In the value hierarchy of the individual, the deepest truths are set apart as sacred assumptions 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 subconscious expectations are the most real things to that cognition – the deepest joys, highest epiphanies, or traumatic distortions. Whether embodied in adherence to a faith tradition or a reaction to trends (spirits) 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 religiously described.
These principles are not based on religion but produce it through the physical being's manifestations in conscious reality. Our knowledge of these elements has been preserved through our volatile generations by religion and as religion yet they are the antecedents and not the descendants of religion. We are not seeking to defend nor minimize religions, but draw utility from a physically defined ontology of being so powerfully felt by our ancestors as to be passed down through behavioral heuristics (as values) thought to be sacred. Heuristics are wisdom – ideas time-tested by experience. After years of natural selective processes result in epiphanies that preserve a people group, these ideas are foisted upon children as sacred and then religiously reproduced.
In this age of information and religious decay, embracing knowledge with insufficient experiential testing appears to be driving therapeutic training programs forward into excessive complexity and contradicting paradigms separated from on-the-ground reality. My proposal is a simplified framework that has helped organize and maintain my own mental sanity and remain robust or “antifragile” while training and working as a psychotherapist. It is a kinetic view that respects ancient philosophies where they prove scientifically correct and relevant, yet remains separate from the dogma of religious calcification or political transience.
Sex and Gender
I will be using the traditional western archetypes and primarily discussing cultural antecedents. This is an examination, not a reformation. 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, family and identity questions are ambiguous or controversial. Does "Father" indicate “Spirit" is maternal? Why does the “Son” dominate? Why is a masculine term used? Why is there no daughter? What do these entities indicate about reality in a quantum universe?
Those who study Western history know that the archetypal elements of order/chaos, tyrant/monster, sky/earth, etc. use ancient gender representations, where men are culture and women are nature. Questions of gender representation seeking to defend the value of the body against past exploitation would sacrifice present action-potential ideas, which are our current concern. That we can assign behavior or objects with masculine and feminine categorizations is not indefensible nor is it incendiary, as each gender has elemental patterns which apply to both sexes. Constructs of reduction sacrifice complexity by their very nature. Reductive explanations are not the most accurate, but they are the most memorable and therefore more useful than graded 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, and while not presented here, a discussion of these crossovers would be welcome.
Three Behavior Orientations
The primary idea is a philosophy of three, action-oriented processes. We engage with reality at three fundamental levels resulting from our cognitive perspective—a mind bounded by a physical body and built to engage at the sensory level with two hemispheric realities, order and chaos, the known and the unknown, the left and right hemispheres. In the simplest form, we are allowed three states of sensory engagement with what we know and what we do not know. These three states show themselves across domains:
Actively, they are:
Grasping the object,
Holding the object,
Releasing the object.
Philosophically, they are:
Intention towards (movement to achieve, action potential),
Presence with (contact, experience, maintenance of a state),
Release from (release, separation, termination, completion).
Note there is only one action phase because a movement towards is always away from a previous state, but there are three states of intention when interacting with an object. Action without intention is not possible for conscious beasts, so the state of being is better defined in relation to the object. Action is also part of this triad – intention, movement, rest. Psychology also defines the self as a separate object with which our consciousness can interact and have intention towards. Additional triads which align with this concept include:
Our neurocognitive structures allocate:
intellect to determine direction,
emotion to qualify experience, and
will to include or exclude data from both.
Internally, this is experienced as:
intention,
acceptance, and
judgment.
Religiously (and perhaps archetypally) we have represented this as
Son – Hero, Heir, or Prince/Princess;
Holy Spirit – Lady Wisdom, Muses, Roadside Prophets, Healers at the Spring;
Father – Patriarchy, Matriarchy, King/Queen.
In psychological theory, I consider these to convert to:
goal/path oriented theories of individuation,
psychological safety presence,
boundaries or the conditions of letting go, changing direction, or refusing to permit.
Archetypes are useful in unpacking both internal processes and cyclical relationships. Symbolic representation hides internal mechanics and are not as straightforward as the philosophical options, yet are typically more emotionally powerful. 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 education to discuss non-western religions further). We see these concepts have common, underlying correlations that precede religion.
These states are cyclical over time, even generational. Judgment precedes intentional action, just as a parent precedes a child. Hierarchical paternalism limits possibilities according to the order of value (elders prioritize long term, tested success routes while youths prefer to test the boundaries). 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” or pro-social-forward nature of wisdom). This spirit of the heuristic, a combination of theoretical (epistemological) and experiential intelligence, then measures the individual’s 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 away possibilities and restarting the cycle.
Conversely, Spirit (Mother) represents the wellspring of Heroic action which moves in service to Self-sacrifice (Father) because heuristics inform our value hierarchies just as a feminine spirit informs, judges, and drives a masculine intention (the masculine male always has a feminine soul just as the feminine male has a masculine soul, and the same duality for women). In neurological terms, this might be seen as the limbic system informing the intellect to act in the route of the conscious will’s chosen pathway, supported by an ordered value hierarchy. We could also say the conscious frontal lobe informs the limbic neurochemical emotions to direct action – intention embodies will but acts from emotion.
Archetypes
These ontological representations of action from the individual locus can also be psychodynamically defined as archetypes, as elements of identity directing development stages of personality. (Those uninterested in archetypal representations can skip to Psychological Application.”)
Spirit
This begins not with Son, but with Spirit, the eternal aspect of ouroboric wisdom, a circular sustaining of the self, embodied existence. This is the presence of being, the original state in 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 if successful, yields peace. It holds presence; it holds all things at all times. It is contained within the individual, but it is measured by its resonance in others. It is refined through action. It is the state produced by the parental intention to sacrifice of the future and let go of former, egocentric behavior.
Son or Hero(ine)
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. This is Jesus tempted in the desert before teaching, St. George confronting the dragon, or Iron-Man imprisoned in a desert cave, shrapnel from his naivety slowly moving towards his heart. The hero is anti-fragile, submitting to chaos to refine wisdom, and is part of the systemic rejuvenation process (when correctly developed by ordered society) which adapts civilization to resist the threat of chaos across the ages. It is Thor contending with Loki. The hero is not recognized as the hero until they sacrifice the self for insight then return it to help others for 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, becoming 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 counterbalances the betrayal of devouring femininity (The White Stag, Hansel and Gretel, Mystique, Hela, etc.) or the unchecked power of masculinity. The heroine also possesses the identities of the prophetess, catalyst/muse, and healer in relationship to the prince, whom she identifies, catalyzes/inspires transformation into the hero, and heals when he falls. They may or may not be mutually dependent. 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.
Patriarchy/Matriarchy
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, an insight we have lost in the industrial revolution. At this stage, one’s actions and discoveries rejuvenate the group and result in ascendancy to facilitation, ending all other unproductive ways of being. This is pruning oneself of exploration interests, establishing boundaries on behavior, and repressing all unrealized potential except those which have been actualized. This does not mean the King/Queen cease to explore entirely, but that their explorations emphasize what they have learned to be useful and productive to the world as they understand it and support the next generation. If done right, they 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). The father that does not let go prevents the son from becoming a king or a daughter from finding one. Likewise, the mother who refuses to let go prevents her daughter from becoming a queen and keeps her son weak, dependent, and emotionally unavailable.
Wisdom in the young is as unattractive as frivolity in the elderly. ~ N. Taleb
The heroic identity is therefore 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 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(ine), 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 essential tools are, in Nietzsche’s terms, wrapped in values as follows:
Paternal Will-to-Power through Faith and release of ego,
Spiritual Dionysian Loving embrace of ego permeability, and
Ubermensch’s active embodiment of Hope in ego success.
These three elements are the only things that have a measurable impact within psychology. Where anything else works, it works because it leverages these elements. They are metaphorically the nature of Logos itself, of being itself, and therefore the only golden thread to pull and produce a transformational change. Defined in the language of research, they are the elements of goal/path theories, psychological safety approaches, and the essential conditions of letting go, changing direction, or refusing to permit – Adlerian personal responsibility or “boundaries” as defined by Dr. Henry Cloud’s work, among others.
While all psychological theories work in our present theory, some embody various elements more fully than others. Strategic therapy, coaching, counseling, and Motivational Interviewing (MI) rely on clarifying intention to produce action, that old hero of goal-path theory. Narrative and Solutions-Focused Therapy at their worst direct behavior according to therapist beliefs, and at their best, map out goal-pathways for experience testing. Rogerian psychology embraces the spirit of psychological safety, suspending judgment and solutions, believing acceptance will motivate the individual to form intention or let go. Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and Adlerian Therapy function on the termination of behavioral ideas, beliefs, and patterns that are incongruous with reality, disputing irregularities for the purpose of change. 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. Gestalt therapy, Psychoanalysis, and Jungian Analysis leverage the hero in the analyst to reveal dysfunctional behavioral patterns and dissolve obstacles preventing optimal action in the client served.
Dysfunctional paradigms in psychology can also be defined along these lines. Attachment issues deal in negative and positive or attenuation and depreciation of relational interactions. The individual struggles to maintain presence (secure attachment) and errs with too much intention (anxious attachment) or too much separation (avoidant attachment). 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, and the ability to be present falters. The initial solution to trauma or difficult circumstances eventually becomes the problem. For example, Depression and Anxiety share impeded intention and fear of loss, corrupting the ability to maintain presence. In my experience, anxiety emphasizes future loss and depression is overwhelmed by past loss. Cluster disorders forgo the balance of object interactions. Cluster A disorders experience an especially disordered relationship with both personal and other’s presences. Manic states and Cluster B disorders share overbearing intention. Cluster C disorders especially struggle with loss. 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, emulating our emotional presence, and finding ability to release other objects. 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 from individual and personal choices to family roles and collective work. 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? How do I want people around me to feel? 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
Heuristic processes have passed archetypal ideas down, being embodied in a revered, sacred context served by religious dogma as traditional ideas 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 categorically, neatly, and reveal felt problems with theories that have “release" and “presence" as tenants but discard the responsibility of purposeful, proper, meaningful action. One cannot hold the cup nor let it go unless it is first taken up. The object which is received by happenstance rarely forms a productive, useful relationship.
