The beauty of the MARI is that it is conceived intuitively. Both the selection of the cards and the assessment are dialogues between unconscious, inner “knowing” and the conscious experience of that knowledge.

Even though Joan Kellogg’s studies of mandalas and the research methods and statistical correlations she used are scientific, the formulation of the assessment itself, the “interpretation” of the symbols and colors so to speak, is based upon the subjective reactions of the researcher, the assessor and the client to these symbols. This makes the MARI such an authentic tool. To consciously stay and work with the intuitively known “meaning” of the symbols, rather than dissecting or breaking them down into the language of words and concepts, is probably the most fundamental way to express what is happening in human consciousness[1].

In this paper I will talk about my experiences during the MARI I workshop I did with Shelley Takei in Lily Dale this August. This is my personal account. I will describe my reactions to the training, the MARI and the symbols. In some instances I add personal thoughts and intuitions because I feel involved, committed even. In the last part I add some of the comments my classmates sent me in response to my questionnaire.

The MARI is such a beautiful instrument. It could do so much good.

I would like to see it used in a meaningful way.

Our workshop/training starts with the drawing of a mandala.

A sheet of paper[2] with a circle the size of a dinner plate is put in front of us and boxes of pastels. There are no instructions really: “Surprise yourselves!”.

Music in the background, a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere. I guess most of us did this before.

As a non-artists I suffer a little, not really used to this way of expressing myself, slightly disappointed when the pictures that appear on paper turn out to be so different from the images in my mind. But still, once started, I surprise myself with the ease with which I seem to come up with forms, with colors. Although I feel clumsy, it is surprising to feel I can express myself in a language I barely know… or thought I barely knew… The result looks good enough to me, maybe because I make an effort not to “compare” it with the mandalas others made.

We are instructed to sign our names and after half an hour or so most of us have completed the task.

I remember I feel not totally comfortable to hand my mandala over to Shelley’s assistant. It is as if we are not supposed to look at it again, forget about it. Definitely something mysterious it to be done with it later.

In retrospect I think drawing the mandala probably influenced the choice of my cards. I mean this in a positive way.

When you sit there with your virginal white paper you have/want to come up with something to fill the emptiness before you. I believe that what comes up, what appears in form, tells you something about yourself, about your inner contents that linger unconsciously, expressing themselves through what you put to paper.

So the symbols that occurred in my mandala where the symbols that represented my consciousness at that moment in time. Once they appeared on the paper, in my mandala, I consciously saw those symbols, recognized them as being mine, and toyed with them to make them even more attractive to me (trying to match my inner image I guess).

When, after drawing a mandala I had a deck of symbol cards to choose from, it seems almost natural to (unconsciously) “recognize” the symbols I just choose for my mandala, and select them again. Even with their “appropriate” colors.

I dare say that the experience of drawing the mandala and seeing it finished, reinforces the MARI assessment. The symbols in a mandala are our own creations, the symbols in the MARI, their representation in 39 separate cards. When a person affirms the symbols in his or her mandala with the choice of symbols and colors, I would say the assessment gains in value.

For the client it is definitely affirming when she sees symbols from her selection in her mandala. The consistency of the choice of these symbols heightens receptiveness to their message.

Next the MARI cards. As trainees we actually receive our very own set of cards, the Great Round, and other materials at this point, which makes the whole process even more exciting. I sense a mood of reverence – we are like priestesses gathering the tools for our ceremony. I don’t remember whether we actually did a short meditation or prayer, but it would have certainly fitted in this context.

It is a good thing to do some kind of initiation; it makes “the choosing of the cards” into a ritual. Joan Kellogg mentions this too in Path of Beauty. It certainly helps the process. When you base a whole assessment on the few minutes it takes to choose symbols and colors, it is important to have the person doing it in a state that is as open and receptive as possible.

The instructions are simple again: “choose the six symbols you feel most attracted to and the one you are least attracted to”. We take our symbol cards from our boxes and start selecting. I do this quickly, just choosing as I go through the stack, dividing in “nice” and “not so”. From the nice ones I have no real trouble selecting the six I like best. The “least attractive” card is harder, but jumps out too. No thinking involved, just listening; these cards “talk” to me.

It is only when I see the others that the thought enters my mind that maybe I should take a little longer to make my choices. Did I overlook stuff, should I have “thought” about it more? Well, it does not bother me too much, so I relax and trust the system.

Colors then. We take our color palettes and are instructed to choose for each of our symbols the color that goes with it. This process is even more interesting.

I find myself selecting the colors more or less in the same way I selected the symbols; I just take out the colors I like and then look/feel with which of my symbol they fit. Only for the blank circle (B) and my rejected symbol (u-v) I am really consciously choosing what fits those symbols best for me, but even those choices seem kind of obvious.

Again I am surprised – I thought this would be complicated, but it almost seems as if I am not really the one making the choices.

I am merely picking out the cards that scream loudest: “select the cards you are most attracted to”, indeed!

I felt a dialogue of some sort going on between me and the cards. It was a bit like writing a poem and finding just the right words on your lips…

Another thing I notice here is that for me there are a lot of colors that yell “no way” at me. I am almost surprised they are in the palette. I even wonder for a moment whether I am too inartistic to appreciate the not-so-basic colors, especially when I see some of the artists trying each card out on each of the colors, oeps.

But I feel done and satisfied with my selection, starting to get curious what all this will uncover about me and my unconscious processes…

Now that I have seen more people select their cards, I think we can already “read” much in the way a person chooses his or her cards. Some of us have an easy-going, almost careless way in which they choose symbols and colors “just” because they feel attractive, where others respond to a need to thoroughly “study” every possible combination to feel comfortable with their choices. This surely talks to us.

The next assignment is to focus for a moment on an issue in our lives. Then we are asked to select two more symbols with their appropriate colors; these should represent our “guidance cards”. A guidance card would be a symbol that gives you some direction, an area you need to focus on, or for instance it confirms you in something you are doing. This in relation to the issue you just selected.

Well, it is amazing how to-the-point a symbol represents something, isn’t it?

If you had to select a single word it would probably be much more challenging. A symbol seems to have an innate, archetypal, guiding character already. And we recognize it.

This reminds me of what Anthony Stevens says about symbols and the archetypal patterns of response they evoke in us.

For the two guidance cards I notice that my choice is much more directed, I choose these cards with an inner intention, issue in mind.

For my first guidance card I deliberately choose a card that looks like a candle flame to me (y-z) because I like the guiding image of it; a light to follow, something to focus on. I give it light blue because the rebel in me thinks light yellow is too obvious a choice (weird how my mind works!). The second one is a mobilizing symbol (g-h), I actually feel I could use some dynamic/energy, thus I choose that with the light yellow that is still on the table. I make these choices with more mind than I made the earlier ones, or at least I think so…. later I discover I have yellow spirals all over my mandala, the light blue spots “to focus on” are right there too – amazing!

I loved this stage, actually I thought this was the best! Somehow for me “the way things are” is not that interesting it seems; to learn how to move on is more exciting. During the actual assessments these guidance cards carried important “messages” every time around.

I definitely think the addition of the issue/guidance cards to the MARI valuable, especially in a non-pathological context. Not only can the MARI be used as a diagnostic tool or vehicle for self-discovery, with this step it becomes a true instrument of healing, transformation and growth. Not only do we make an assessment of the state of consciousness we are in, we also address the issues most pressing to present themselves to our foreground/consciousness.

Although I realize “foreground” is basically a Gestalt notion, linked with the concept of a “self-regulating system” in this context it feels also accurate. The MARI starts from the premise that we unconsciously know before and more than what we consciously know. It seems that when “asked” to provide us with guidance, our unconscious gladly provides us with the most urgent pointers. Or maybe, by asking for guidance we open up to possible inner answers we normally do not hear or listen to. Maybe that is why prayer helps[3]…

We start with the actual training. An overview of the Great Round and its stages. For each stage Shelley presents the symbols with their characteristics, psychological aspects, tasks and specific aspects in mandalas. We brainstorm[4] and discuss possible and potential interpretations. Works of art, movies and other expressions of the particular stages pass in review. I love this way of teaching; starting from a basis of “given” interpretation, we feel our way into the depth of meaning for every stage, for every symbol. Again this sense of unconscious knowing, I think the others feel it to. I truly enjoy recognizing other people’s input as valid and true for me too. It is a joy of recognition, of re-finding inner sources of knowledge, of re-trusting my inner voices.

The fact that we selected our symbols and colors for the first time without consciously knowing their “meaning” was valuable. I don’t think it would be possible for me to choose symbols or colors again in such an “innocent” way.

An additional bonus was that during the introduction of the Great Round each of us had our own selections in the back of our minds, which made the explanations much more understandable, even knowable on an experiential level. I could actually recognize the interpretations of most of the symbols I choose (and the ones I “consciously” did not choose), surprising myself yet again with a sense of knowing that I did not realize I had used for my selecting. It is a bit like doing things instinctively, for instance holding or breastfeeding a baby. You “just” do it, enjoying that you know how, slightly wondering where you “learned” to do that.

For me that feeling of unconscious knowing clearly signifies the beauty of the MARI as an instrument. The moment you discuss what your selections could mean, you recognize their significance for you on a deeper level. It is not as if somebody tells or teaches you something you did not know. Words and concepts don’t enter this process of coming to conscious knowing, which means for me that it is a rather “pure” way to “pure” knowledge. The interpretation is mostly in a symbolic, sensing dialogue between symbol and person(s) rather than analytical or conceptual. The symbols speak for themselves, especially when placed with their colors in the Great Round, which in itself is a much symbol as are the stages in it are.

For me it was important to keep the bigger picture of the Great Round (representing an organic, cyclic transformational process) in mind while discussing the stages. Within the Great Round and its inner dynamics the different stages and their specific symbols obtain momentum, gain meaning. This is where the MARI evolves into a transpersonal instrument. The Great Round, the bigger picture, gives us a different, “wider”, perspective. The symbols and their colors are presented within the larger picture of the process as a whole. We can observe the position of individual symbols in relation to other symbols, the grouping of symbols in certain stages, the potential balance or imbalance in the “chart”. The MARI actually reminds me of an astrological chart – it is interesting to look how certain configurations correlate with certain characteristics in the clients psychology or health.

As I understand it, the MARI II deals mainly with the symbol-stage and color combinations. It would be great if we could also discuss (en groupe, in a learning setting) how to work with the dynamics within the Great Round. In the assessments we did, we intuitively evaluated the connections between symbols/stages, or their relative positions in the Great Round and found them often significant and meaningful.

For me it makes sense to assess the selection as a whole, a mandala or Great Round in itself. Of course we need to evaluate the separate symbols with their colors, but it is the evaluation of the placement of the chosen symbol-color combinations in the Great Round that takes the assessment to its transpersonal dimension.

We split up in two’s to do our personal MARIs. The idea is to prepare a presentation initiating the group assessment of each of our mandala/card selections.

We are instructed to specifically talk about what the chosen colors mean to our “clients” personally, before giving any (general, standardized ) interpretations.

For me this dialogue-way-of-doing-this was an real eye-opener. Actually we started out doing “readings”, monologues, and although my partner had many wonderful things to say, I got stuck almost immediately.

In retrospect I think this could also be a cultural thing. In my experience most Americans are much more direct in what they say to each other than Europeans are. We (Europeans) are not used to giving personal feedback (“you are so and so”) in that way. Maybe it is considered rude, I do not know, but anyway it feels “not done”, especially before you know a person intimately. Somehow we seem much more socialized to be careful with what we express (and what we do??), especially face-to-face. Maybe long ages of “culture” made us less open, less spontaneous[5].

The personal MARI was indeed personal. I was happy we did this before the group assessment, because it gave me a chance to evaluate my own cards first with my partner. I must admit my own MARI was important to me. It was essential to me to experience the relevance of my own selection. If my choices wouldn’t have made any sense to me it would have been a lot harder for me to “accept” the MARI as an effective tool; I would have been troubled the rest of the training, not sure this would/could work for me. Yes, I wanted to believe in this instrument!

I think it is important to take this into account in MARI I trainings; the students should get enough time and opportunity to evaluate their own selections to start to feel confident with the instrument. I remember it really helped that Shelley came to each of the groups in turn to assist the assessors. Very important, because we were all “doing our best” but some of us needed the help of the expert to add the magic.

Again, for me it was important to have a good sense of my own assessment before the group assessment of it. There was so much information coming at me during that (group) process, that I could not handle it. Too much, too direct (?), too personal. I barely remember anything the others said. It seems I hardly listened because I had a hard time reflecting on the input already given. A few of my classmates commented on this too so I don’t think this is just me.

The personal assessment was also an opportunity to discuss personal issues. For me this is an important potential of the MARI in a therapeutical context.

Most of my clients come with what we call a “request for help”. I don’t think I could do a MARI with them (and have them pay for my time) if it would not somehow be connected with the issues they came to me for. I understand the value of a MARI per se, but I am not so clear yet on when to use it. Personally I hesitate to do a “standard” MARI at every intake, as suggested in our group. I don’t think that is appropriate for my clients. They come with something specific they want help/coaching with. And also, during a first session, I normally do not know yet how “transpersonal” they want to go. I guess I need a certain openness to spiritual dimensions to use the MARI properly. I don’t sense that openness with every client who enters my office. What I believe is that I can add the MARI to my instrumentarium in my therapeutic work and use it when I intuit it appropriate. Furthermore I sense great potential for the MARI as an introduction to a dialogue about transpersonal themes. This is an “down to earth” instrument: a person chooses symbol cards and colors, the assessor talks with her/him about what these choices could mean and how to possibly integrate accessed knowing in her/his life.

When this person feels comfortable with this process and realizes on a deeper level that there is indeed a fruitful dialogue possible with “inner knowing”, a path to a transpersonal perspective is laid. I can imagine myself working with the MARI in this way.

I would love to share insights as to when/in what context to optimally use the MARI during the next training (one of the students wondered “whether our other classmates are using this in their practices and whether they feel it is helpful and enlightening or merely fun.”).

The next session is the group assessment of personal MARIs; we each start to present the MARI of our partner, the group joins in with additions and comments. In a setting where several people “intuition-storm” a MARI selection, the person who chose the cards has the opportunity to taste and eventually recognize the palette of meanings contained in the Great Round constellation she has formed.

I think the essential dialogue is the client’s; her inner/unconscious knowing and messages should find a way to express themselves in such a way that the client can consciously integrate them.

This is important to me. Doing a MARI, especially in a group, we, in optima forma, enter the assessment with the intention to enhance the dialogue within the client; to assist her in finding her own interpretation of the symbol-color combinations in their relative positions in the Great Round. Our intuitions (inner dialogues) are relevant of course, but more so in a true connection with the client.

I am interested in the client. Since we use the mandala and MARI as an assessment tool now in a non-pathological environment, I think it is important to get some feedback from the "clients". As Martie suggested we no longer (want to) serve Happy Meals, we want people to taste everything themselves and then pick out what is best for them, at that moment in time.

Within a week after our workshop I send 10[6] of my fellow students a questionnaire[7] per e-mail asking them for their feedback on their personal MARIs. Twelve days later I sent a reminder to those who did not yet answer.

From the eight responses I received I distilled these relevant comments.

Several students remarked that they felt a bit overwhelmed by the group assessment and preferred to work in twos or threes. One person proposed to add an observer for additional feedback. This would be a good idea, especially in the training - the assessor should be able to receive feedback on her assessment too.

Somebody suggested that the group assessment “was more wide ranging and more descriptive of some essential characteristics rather than of current concerns”. I certainly agree with that. Most of us shared our “issue” with our partners, but did not go into those details during the group MARI. Also because we had a time problem. In a few instances we did go into personal issues, and then found ourselves giving loads of advice or brainstorming on solutions (sometimes appropriate, sometimes not so?).

Of course we need to keep in mind that we would normally do most MARIs in a one-on-one setting. The group assessments were a training tool, to give each of us the opportunity to see and participate in real life assessments. This was excellent, I enjoyed it enormously and surely learned more than I could have learned without the group.

Both settings have their advantages. Although we can dive into the issue with a partner, the “risk” of ending up in a therapeutic dialogue, or “discussing” the options, is considerably bigger (although we ended up doing that in group too).

A larger group has much more energy and input as insights are shared by many people. I sometimes felt we “lost” the client in the process, which is for me understandable, but definitely something to avoid. Some of the comments in the feedback point to this. As somebody notes, “Shelley’s sensitivity towards the feelings of others” helped; “she drew things out in questioning (dialogue) rather than blurting out information (vs. “reading”)”.

Another point that came up for us after the group sessions comes up again in the responses: the assessments have a tendency to be emphatically encouraging and uplifting. Did we, individually and as a group, avoid the not-so-confirming/positive stuff? I think so. Are we, as assessors, supposed to “just” point to the “good” potentials, or should we somehow “transform” everything into positive confirmations[8]? I don ‘t think so.

This is a valid discussion – we should tackle it in a next MARI training.

It would be a good thing for us, MARI trainees, to heighten our awareness of how we, most of us I guess, consider some symbols-colors-stages “not so good” and some “better”[9]. It would be useful to at least get it out in the open and discuss the potential of all combinations, negative and positive, recognizing our need to be for instance supportive or/and confirming (thus unconsciously “optimalizing” the assessment). We need to keep in mind that what pops up for the client is probably what the client needs to know - we should trust this “system”. Again, I belief the input from the client is most important, the dialogue a necessity.

Some concerns are about any cultural bias the MARI may reflect. We discussed this in group – the example of the yellow color for males from a certain era comes to mind. We should pay attention to these deviations from our interpretations. I believe it is useful not only to ask a client what a color signifies to her, but to also ask about the symbols.

For me it was sometimes as if the color of a card gave it a certain direction. The combination of a symbol with that particular color carried it beyond its own (the symbol’s) significance, not the other way around. In some instances we tried another color with a symbol “how does that feel” (one of my classmates commented that she did not feel it was appropriate to suggest new cards, since “it changed the process from a spontaneous, primarily right-brain activity to a calculated, left-brain activity”).

Sometimes I wondered if the symbol itself should not “count” more as such. I realize it’s placement in the Great Round is probably the most important information, but I have the experience that feedback from the client sometimes indicates that although she choose this particular symbol, she selected it with another image in mind.

I, as mentioned, choose the stage 12 y-z card, which for me represented a flame. For me it was a light to follow (a guidance card), a way out in a sense, no “hallelujah” really (which wouldn’t have made much sense to me for guidance).

Maybe, as an assessor, I would put my candle-symbol, after my explanations of it, in stage 2. It has more significance for me there I think, the light blue I put with it also adds another perspective.

All responses are very positive. Almost everybody enjoyed the training and the MARI process. They all felt the assessment was accurate and confirming. Many considered their MARIs addressed what needed to be addressed. Although the majority of students says the assessments rather confirmed what they already knew, most feel that they were inspired to change their perspective in a positive way. All of us look forward to MARI II!

---

[1] as we discussed with Anthony Stevens in LMII

[2] it is maybe nicer to work on square paper 12” by 12” for instance

[3] for me this discussion looks like a good theme for my AU thesis

[4] brainstorm is not really a good word here; intuitionstorm describes the process better

[5] well Frank, we could discuss this some other time over a glass of wine (or is that too European??)

[6] I did not have e-mail addresses for two, I added two people who did MARIs with us

[7] see attachment

[8] this reminds me of mediums who claim they never give people any “bad” news.

[9] For instance stage 11 is “not so” (or “not yet”), stage 12 is “better” (“yes!!”). Weird really because I felt definitely confused when I found 3 of my cards in 12. You’re supposed to feel great with that? My issue is/was: “what next??” ;o). Stage 0: the best, stage 1: not so… etc., etc..