MT- PYRAMID WHOLISTIC GEOMETRIC QUESTER is a tool which enables us to think in a multidimensional way about the ‘self’. It is also a metaphor or model of the self. It is, as the homepage suggests, a closed shape and the simplest (in terms of number of sides and vertices) of the PLATONIC SOLIDS, a group of three dimensional shapes known since antiquity. They are characterised by having all edges and internal angles being equal in size. The model can be used to orient the user to her or his current life situation, identifying aspects of harmony or disharmony and thus facilitating personal development. The primary focus at any moment may be understanding the current situation or reaching out for harmony in the future.
The reason for selecting a closed shape for the model is to emphasise the subjective experience of life. We are not islands nor hermetically sealed ‘bubbles’. We are not primarily ‘egos’ as Alan Watts points out (Ref.1) rather we are constantly in touch with and influenced by the presence of others and are an intrinsic part of the universe. On the other hand we apprehend our own behaviour differently from that of others and the need for verbal communication about our thoughts, feelings and beliefs makes the distinction between self-knowledge and ‘other’ knowledge quite unmistakeable. Mehri Takhvar, the founder of the MT-Pyramid enterprise originally identified this distinction in her observational studies of young (nursery school age) children. The paradigm prevalent at the time emphasised the need to develop clearly defined categories with which the child’s behaviour could be described. The categories were. devised by experts on the basis of their own theories. In a key study carried out as part of her PhD research Takhvar collected information from the parent of each of a group of children, alongside that provided by the nursery staff then observed the children and catagorised their classifiable activities while asking the child to describe to the observer (Mehri herself) what they were doing. The crucial result was that the activity as described by the child was typically quite different from that recorded by the observer as onlooker. An example would be that the child appeared to be involved in an episode of fantasy play since they were washing a doll in water. When the child was asked what they were doing they replied that they were simply washing some dirt off the doll. The external description differed systematically from that of the participant - the child him or herself.
One way of describing this situation is to see both the child and the ‘observer’ as equal co-creators of meaning. In this sense both are psychologists but engaged in very different forms of psychology. There are three possible forms: first-person psychology relates to the subjectivity of the actor, to a person’s own constructs and understanding. Second person psychology relates to understanding what is going on through an encounter with ‘other’ person(s) and the joint exploration and negotiation of the meaning of the situation. The classical ‘observation’ paradigm yields only a third person psychology where the actor’s behaviour is described and theorised by a stranger.
In other words in using the tetrahedral model we are prioritising first-person psychology while recognising that in many cases understanding will be arrived at through joint negotiation and agreement. The moment we talk about pyramid to another we move automatically from first to second person understanding.
The reason for selecting a closed shape for the model is to emphasise the subjective experience of life. We are not islands nor hermetically sealed ‘bubbles’. We are not primarily ‘egos’ as Alan Watts points out (Ref.1) rather we are constantly in touch with and influenced by the presence of others and are an intrinsic part of the universe. On the other hand we apprehend our own behaviour differently from that of others and the need for verbal communication about our thoughts, feelings and beliefs makes the distinction between self-knowledge and ‘other’ knowledge quite unmistakeable. Mehri Takhvar, the founder of the MT-Pyramid enterprise originally identified this distinction in her observational studies of young (nursery school age) children. The paradigm prevalent at the time emphasised the need to develop clearly defined categories with which the child’s behaviour could be described. The categories were. devised by experts on the basis of their own theories. In a key study carried out as part of her PhD research Takhvar collected information from the parent of each of a group of children, alongside that provided by the nursery staff then observed the children and catagorised their classifiable activities while asking the child to describe to the observer (Mehri herself) what they were doing. The crucial result was that the activity as described by the child was typically quite different from that recorded by the observer as onlooker. An example would be that the child appeared to be involved in an episode of fantasy play since they were washing a doll in water. When the child was asked what they were doing they replied that they were simply washing some dirt off the doll. The external description differed systematically from that of the participant - the child him or herself.
One way of describing this situation is to see both the child and the ‘observer’ as equal co-creators of meaning. In this sense both are psychologists but engaged in very different forms of psychology. There are three possible forms: first-person psychology relates to the subjectivity of the actor, to a person’s own constructs and understanding. Second person psychology relates to understanding what is going on through an encounter with ‘other’ person(s) and the joint exploration and negotiation of the meaning of the situation. The classical ‘observation’ paradigm yields only a third person psychology where the actor’s behaviour is described and theorised by a stranger.
In other words in using the tetrahedral model we are prioritising first-person psychology while recognising that in many cases understanding will be arrived at through joint negotiation and agreement. The moment we talk about pyramid to another we move automatically from first to second person understanding.
Each face of the pyramid corresponds to a major aspect of human life and they were labelled in accordance with many other humanistic or transpersonal perspectives (Ref.2,…) as Body, Mind and Spirit; the innovation at this stage was to decide on the nature of the fourth face which was termed the BASE. It is important to note that these names refer not to vertices (points) but denote facets or PLANES – they are representative of different planes of existence (or being) which we use to situate our experience. It is important to note again here that the planes define a multi-dimensional space and life is contained in that space in so far as first person psychology is concerned.
The ‘BODY’ face or physical face represents the physical capacities and state of the person in the present as the person uses the MT-Pyramid approach. This aspect of the model can be interrogated using questions like:
The ‘MIND’ face or mental face represents and relates to the 'cognitive' aspects of the self; to the aspects that form the traditional subject matter of psychology such as memory, perception, thinking and problem solving. Relevant questions are exemplified by these examples:
The ‘SOUL’ or spiritual face has little to do with traditional religion or with an individualised spirit being. Rather it represents the framework the person uses to make sense of their life and experience. One form of this might well be to see yourself as a unique individual spiritual being created by the act of some divine entity (Watts calls this the ceramic view of the universe, ref)but others may well have a different belief system. Every human being is reared in a culture of some sort and thus has a system available within which to make sense of their life as a whole and construct plans (or render their existence meaningful). This can be addressed by questions such as:
The ‘BODY’ face or physical face represents the physical capacities and state of the person in the present as the person uses the MT-Pyramid approach. This aspect of the model can be interrogated using questions like:
- Am I tired or well-rested?
- Am I experiencing pain?
- What tasks do I find it easy to perform?
- What am I having difficulty with?
The ‘MIND’ face or mental face represents and relates to the 'cognitive' aspects of the self; to the aspects that form the traditional subject matter of psychology such as memory, perception, thinking and problem solving. Relevant questions are exemplified by these examples:
- What do I know about (a current concern)?
- What do I believe about it?
- Can I think about this situation differently?
- Do I know where to get accurate information about this?
The ‘SOUL’ or spiritual face has little to do with traditional religion or with an individualised spirit being. Rather it represents the framework the person uses to make sense of their life and experience. One form of this might well be to see yourself as a unique individual spiritual being created by the act of some divine entity (Watts calls this the ceramic view of the universe, ref)but others may well have a different belief system. Every human being is reared in a culture of some sort and thus has a system available within which to make sense of their life as a whole and construct plans (or render their existence meaningful). This can be addressed by questions such as:
- Have I (or am I) behaving well or badly?
- What is the thing I value most or want most in this situation?
- Why do I think this is a good thing to do?
- How would (significant others) evaluate my current course of action?
The ‘BASE’ face can broadly be viewed as the unconscious ground on or from which we make our current evaluation. In the course of life we learn or acquire habits of thought or action. We are exposed to and internalise other people’s evaluations of us as a person (our strengths and weaknesses). We develop a language in which to talk about ourselves or other people. We have propensities or abilities: some are convincing and confident language users others express themselves through constructive activity or art, music and dance; some have keen eyesight or keen hearing; some want to challenge or confront others whilst other people seek to ‘fit in’ and conform to the expectations of others. This face is also linked with motivation and bodily maintenance, meaning the maintaining of homeostasis for example in areas such as body temperature, blood sugar levels, heart rate and balance. It also deals with other appetitive motives since each of the other faces provides input for the base
The spiritual face for instance will have processed the lessons of growing up in a particular culture and a particular family. In this context we learn about authority figures and how to interact with them. In some cultures the authority of parents or educators is considered paramount, of considerably more importance than mere personal preference, but the family interaction will temper and moderate this so that a child in such a culture may have a relatively happy and stress free life, developing trust in authority figures both parental and educational. This trust in the goodwill of those to whom we entrust our education may well prove misplaced in a different cultural setting where the relationship is perceived to be more ‘equal’ but not clearly delineated or well governed by rules. On the other hand someone in a different culture may have a similar indoctrination in relation to the over-riding importance of authority especially ‘divine authority’ in a home ruled by religiosity but find that there is contradiction and even hypocrisy at every turn. Such a person may well learn to keep their own counsel and develop their own ideas while not publicly (or openly) challenging the powerful others in their environment thus avoiding arguments which are only ‘settled’ by a dogmatic appeal to relevant religious texts.
The mind face will provide the person’s preferred way of thinking about the world, whether the individual prefers to think through situations even at the risk of inaction or perhaps the person is more intuitive, relying more on feelings rather than thoughts ( psychologia.co/jung-personality-types/ ). There will also be differences in the preferred kinds of mental activity: puzzle solving, reading, playing strategy games such as chess or 'working' with the computer for example as well as different evaluations derived from those around us of different types of mental activity. Some cultures and families will value critical thinking while others will see it as a threat.
The preferences and 'life lessons' described above in relation to each face become automatic assumptions underlying the way in which we conduct our lives and thus can be legitimately considered part of the base face in most adult behaviour.
The body face is most intimately connected to first person psychology since it includes the operation of a person's sensory systems and nervous system. If we refer back to the kinds of questions which might help when assessing or questing in relation to this face then the case for this claim is surely self evident. Who knows that 'I' am tired; who knows I am experiencing pain and the type of pain I am experiencing; who knows what I find easy or difficult to do? To refer back to one of Mehri Takhvar's research examples, who apart from the child her/himself knows whether (s)he is washing a dirty toy or imagining (s)he is an adult washing a baby?
The body face is most intimately connected to first person psychology since it includes the operation of a person's sensory systems and nervous system. If we refer back to the kinds of questions which might help when assessing or questing in relation to this face then the case for this claim is surely self evident. Who knows that 'I' am tired; who knows I am experiencing pain and the type of pain I am experiencing; who knows what I find easy or difficult to do? To refer back to one of Mehri Takhvar's research examples, who apart from the child her/himself knows whether (s)he is washing a dirty toy or imagining (s)he is an adult washing a baby?
The diagram below was constructed several years ago using the XMind mind mapping software to represent the relationships between the faces of MT-Pyramid and a variety of psychological concepts which were linked to the concept at the time. This was later viewed as putting too much emphasis on the psychological aspects of the pyramid model to the detriment of its potential utility and the omission of some key aspects of human life, notably motivation.
Mind map diagram of the relations between the faces of MT-Pyramid (represented as text boxes) and psychological concepts which can be plausibly associated with the edges where the faces meet as represented by the labelled lines between the faces.
Given the largely unconscious nature of the BASE face it is not so easy to provide sample questions for how we can interrogate it. If we choose to accept the existence of Jung’s collective unconscious then it lies here in our base face. Alternatively we can view the base as indicated above namely as the repository of habits and views which are over-learned parts of our development of which we no longer need to be aware but which influence all aspects of our thought and perception. This implies that the BASE incorporates the epigenetic outcomes of a person's development. This includes the results of adapting to genetic issues (factors such as ambiguous gender status or what are commonly termed ‘birth defects’), experience of attachment and the presence or absence of close relationships as well as adaptions which accommodate ongoing changes in the relationship a person has with their environment arising from long term medical conditions such as epilepsy or chronic pain.
In this sense it is simply a personal unconscious. It can be helpful to discuss our habitual ways of thinking with others, thus making them conscious. This is a process that Paulo Freire terms ‘conscientization’. In other traditions it could be known as (psycho-)analysis, counselling or even confession (Foucault).
In this sense it is simply a personal unconscious. It can be helpful to discuss our habitual ways of thinking with others, thus making them conscious. This is a process that Paulo Freire terms ‘conscientization’. In other traditions it could be known as (psycho-)analysis, counselling or even confession (Foucault).
Instead we will adopt Alan Watts' ecological perspective and see how the pyramid model works as a way to self understanding. To do that it is helpful to introduce some definitions of ways of approaching the self that both the contributors to this site have previously described as types of psychology (or definitions of styles of (psychological) inquiry).
The terms in question are:
The usefulness of this classification was developed by Mehri in her Doctoral and post Doctoral research on children's play.
Third person psychology is typical of how research is conducted in psychology. The person 'behaves' by completing a task or being in an observation situation and what is deemed important are the issues the psychologist wishes to study and the way he or she thinks fit to frame the outcomes.
The 'other' sometimes referred to as the subject or participant has no say or personal input to the process except as one of the 'queue' (Satre,
Second person psychology is perhaps best characterised as a process of negotiation in which the views of the participant are a key part of the information generated. In Mehri's research the nursery school children were asked to say what they were doing and their answers were usually quite different from what had been described in the 'scientific' categories employed in standard observations of children's play. Other examples of second person psychology can be found (for example )and a precursor of the concept can be found in the work of Chalmers ( ) on consciousness.
First person psychology is the one that took me some time to reconcile with avoidance of the illusion of ego, but there is no real problem - we all experience personal and private events. An example would be pain.
The terms in question are:
- First Person (psychology)
- Second Person (psychology)
- Third Person (psychology)
The usefulness of this classification was developed by Mehri in her Doctoral and post Doctoral research on children's play.
Third person psychology is typical of how research is conducted in psychology. The person 'behaves' by completing a task or being in an observation situation and what is deemed important are the issues the psychologist wishes to study and the way he or she thinks fit to frame the outcomes.
The 'other' sometimes referred to as the subject or participant has no say or personal input to the process except as one of the 'queue' (Satre,
Second person psychology is perhaps best characterised as a process of negotiation in which the views of the participant are a key part of the information generated. In Mehri's research the nursery school children were asked to say what they were doing and their answers were usually quite different from what had been described in the 'scientific' categories employed in standard observations of children's play. Other examples of second person psychology can be found (for example )and a precursor of the concept can be found in the work of Chalmers ( ) on consciousness.
First person psychology is the one that took me some time to reconcile with avoidance of the illusion of ego, but there is no real problem - we all experience personal and private events. An example would be pain.
If you wish to find out about the team behind MT-PYRAMID then click on the 'ABOUT' button below.
If you wish to know more about the background to the model then click on the button marked 'REFERENCES'. This will take you to a list of the sources and resources associated with the development of MT-PYRAMID.
If you wish to know more about the background to the model then click on the button marked 'REFERENCES'. This will take you to a list of the sources and resources associated with the development of MT-PYRAMID.