This is a continuation of the previous topic The Paradigm Conspiracy. I am very appreciative and impressed with both the intellectual depth of what everyone has shared in the previous topic, and your willingness to jump in and invite others to participate. I think we have answered with far more depth than I had anticipated several of the initial questions I posed in that topic.
For example:
"What is your belief regarding our innate Wholeness... our Connectedness. Is it a myth? A future possibility? A fantasy?"
Given that we have your foregoing contributions in that regard as a wonderful preface (please feel free to re-visit the previous comments for a refresher), I’d like to do a re-direct now. I am inviting us to begin to consider and comment on some of the questions that have arisen from the discussion thus far.
Namely:
1. One of my initial questions -- "Will it (the experience of Wholeness) provide us with a fundamental understanding from which to solve some of our greatest challenges (personally and societally)?"
2. Tarah's question (which I think is very important for us to explore more deeply): "If we're whole (or a whole within a whole) and yet believe we're less than whole and are separate, how does that then suggest that we are more controllable (or prone to such susceptibility) than if we were not in such a state of mind?"
3. A question that arose from an answer provided by Shayla to WC's question regarding why we don't see wholeness more regularly experienced: "Is it possible that we resist the notion or the experience of oneness... of wholeness... because we are addicted to our life in this world? And we fear that if we truly come to understand that we are a whole within a whole we will somehow die to this world? To our identity? To our limited self?"
4. A take off on Peter's comment: "If I knew deeply, intimately that I was, in fact, whole and that I was similarly connected to each person with whom I came in contact..." then what, if anything would change about how I show up (be, do, have) in the world?
This naturally leads to Ellio's last questions (inspired by all of your comments, I'm sure, but especially by the words of our resident sage, Rizzin [very happy to have you back... hope you and your tribe will share more of your wisdom with us]).
5. If you have had a meaningful encounter of wholeness, how has it impacted your life? Do you crave do have an experience of wholeness (again or for the first time) and does it also, in some regards create some level of fear or trepidation?
This may seem like a lot to chew on, but take the chunk that you relate to most or that hits you the most strongly right now and let's attempt to break this down.
Christopher
P.S. As always remember that to see the comments in a separate window, click on the "Comments" link. To see the comments in the body of the topic, click "Links to this Post"
Views of those commenting have not been checked for accuracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog publisher or his associates.
I turned on the computer in my office this morning and came to this blog, having actually prayed (yes, silly as it may seem, my scientific colleagues, I still pray) that somehow this topic could have taken a turn for the better.
ReplyDeleteSo, thank you, Christopher, for having re-directed the topic. As much as I expressed, in the previous section, that I was looking forward to our discussion, I became very disappointed in how it devolved (yes, I feel it was a devolution). You probably didn't notice, (or maybe care) but I contributed nothing further to the discussion after my initial, "Hello".
My friends, I would challenge us to see if we can move beyond the intellectual tour de force that each of us normally exhibits. It is pleasant, perhaps, to reacquaint ourselves and do a few rounds, as Ellio described, of mental gymnastics. But this topic is of far too great of importance to settle for simply skimming the surface. Let us do a deep dive -- a vulnerable look at what we experience, know, fear, and wonder.
Because, to be honest, if I want to titillate my mind with verbal stimulation, I can go to any of our association meetings and hear that sort of conversation. What I long for, to be very truthful, is meaningful, honest truth-telling, confession, questioning, and authentic exploration.
Is this possible my friends? I hope so. And pardon me, Christopher for regressing, but perhaps we can re-begin at the beginning.
Do we actually know what wholeness is? Can someone define it for me? Am I being too elementary... or are we being too presumptuous to jump ahead of this possible foundational step?
Most sincerely,
Silvio
Silvio,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your honest feedback and your invitation for us to "re-begin at the beginning." You're not alone in your desire or your frustration as I know others who have contributed in the past have been wanting to find a way to approach our conversation on a deeper level as well.
So, let's re-direct, the re-direct. Lets re-begin with the question, "What is wholeness?" Your thoughts and questions are sooo welcome at this point.
Thank you!
Christopher
There are a lot of very bright people in this discussion. I have read with interest all along and don't feel like there is much at all that I can contribute that hasn't already been amply supplied. Rizzin said all that was necessary yesterday. So all I have is one question.
ReplyDeleteWhen climbing a ladder, exerting all strength and ingenuity to weather the storms and scale the heights and not fall, what is to be done when upon reaching the top, battered and spent, one discovers the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall?
When Tarah prefaced her invitation to join in conversation with this group she said that JJ had warned her that, "They can be pretty rigorous." I am afraid I assumed I knew the type of rigor of which she spoke. Clearly, as BKO has put so well, however, it appears that we have been climbing the wrong ladder.
ReplyDeleteI must admit the need to re-gather my thoughts and let go of my well laid out thesis on this topic or, as my son says so well, "get real." I'll also confess, as Silvio has invited, that I have some sense of trepidation around this subject now that we are poised to voyage beyond the boundaries of what has become accepted as eccentric or borderline science (but accepted nonetheless). The fact that I'm confronted is likely evidence enough that we're starting to approach new territory (at least for me) or a depth of exploration that is actually worth the deeper dive.
I look for some of you, who've trodden these paths together in the past, to lead the way. I'll catch up quickly enough after I shake off my well-structured thoughts.
With warm regards,
Anna
"And then the student said, 'But master, if one may not describe enlightenment, how are we to learn of it?'
ReplyDeleteThe master looked steadfastly at the student and growled, "I did not say you may not describe enlightenment. I said you cannot. For it is impossible."
The student, even more troubled than before said, "But if it is impossible to describe, how might one experience it?"
With a tilt of his end and a knowing look, the master smiled. In that moment the student experienced enlightenment.
Seeing this the master whispered harshly, "Go now! Or soon you will give this moment great meaning.'"
Mmmm! Nyguen has said it so beautifully. What we are attempting to explore within the exasperating confines of the written word is something that simply cannot be expressed (especially when we add the degree of difficulty being that English is a second, third, or fourth language for some).
ReplyDeleteNow having said that, I do think it's worth exploring -- as long as we acknowledge that whatever we say will not be "it."
With that as a preface, I'll share too that I have some fear (likely misplaced, but real nonetheless) regarding this topic because of some of the understandable faux pas I made after having what some call a profound experience of oneness.
I do not, by sharing it, mean to make a big deal of this experience, because I believe that as children we have these types of experiences regularly (and some people simply carry that understanding with them without a "break" in their adult reality).
But following my initial re-entry into the “real world” from the conscious experience of unity, I found that how I experienced people, priorities, nature, society -- basically my entire life -- was dramatically different. Suddenly I became more intensely aware of my impact on those around me and saw the opportunity available in each moment to have an impact one way or the other.
My sensitivity to this factor became so extreme (at least from my previous perspective) that I started to become bound up in an inability to operate fluidly (because of being so aware of the seeming importance of every action).
Years have transpired since that experience, and I have become much more "balanced" in terms of how I manage my awareness, but the essence of that awareness has never really left me.
We are, in my experience at least, intimately connected, sacred beings who are part of an infinitely larger living system. Our ability as humans (according to our current wiring) is vastly limited in terms of how well we can translate the infinite sense that "wholeness" and "unity" bring. Some suggest that this limited schematic is an unfortunate devolution from an earlier state that was more adapted to the expression of conscious unity.
That supposition matters little to me, however, because we are here and now and in the circumstances we have created together. To whatever degree we can infuse such experiences of “wholeness” into our lives, however, (and thus the lives of those we come in contact with) it appears that we create a ripple that leads others to follow suit with acts based in connection or simply kind consideration.
I look forward to hearing some of your experiences, wonderings, doubts, and fears as well.
Many blessings to all,
Shayla
Shayla,
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to appear to be clueless, but help me understand how random acts of kindess make a significant difference in the world. I guess I was hoping that by "experiencing" wholeness it would lead to more substantive, global changes. I'm just not sure being nice will get the bigger job done.
With respect,
Tarah
Tarah, you do have a way about you, don't you? And you've challenged me on this before. Tactless as your words are sometimes, my sister, there's always a ring of authenticity to your questions and a skepticism that's genuinely reflective of what many people think, but don't say. Thank you for your frankness.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you've read, however, the variety of economic studies that show the impact of small actions and the cumulative effect they have over surprisingly short periods of time (NYC's clean up and crime reduction being one of the prime examples). So whether you're playing devil's advocate (as you often do so well) or are truly voicing your own cynicism, here's my own answer to your question.
It is my experience that when we believe all is lost or that our actions no longer matter, we give up, become cynical and stop believing that we can be a difference. We give up on the world. We give up on ourselves. Or we restrict our efforts and our reach substantially.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I believe that there are a great number of people in positions of power (economic, religious, political, scientific, educational, etc.) who count on our willingness to believe that we are powerless to change the system -- that we don't matter -- that our opinion doesn't really count -- that we are insignificant. Our willingness to do so or to create any kind of viable alternative ensures that the status quo will be maintained.
I'm not sure why, but my response to the initial experience of wholeness (boundary-less-ness) that I experienced left me unable to buy that story any more. Do I manage when, how, and to whom I fully express myself? Yes. That is one of the realities of our limited world that I've learned to navigate for practical reasons. But I don't buy the overall sales pitch -- that we are broken, insufficient; in need of fixing; in need of soothing and assuaging; in need of buying more stuff to make us a little closer to being okay.
Random acts of kindness do have an impact -- often a significant one. But more importantly than that, it's not that I think the world needs changing, because I don't have any idea what to change, in what order, and what impact it will have on anything and everything else. But what I do, naturally, effortlessly, when I act from that place within me that has a sense of my connection to everything else, are actions that seem saner to me -- actions that people call "nice" or "compassionate" or "ecological." Those are all just labels though -- words we all tend to place on behavior in order to put it in a category.
I don't know about all of that. I just know that it's what I do when I am acting in a way that feels most true for me (recognizing that it may not be true for someone else).
Not sure if that answers your question, but it's my best attempt at the moment.
Blessings to ya,
Shayla
Shayla, you know that as professionals we've always been able to agree to disagree and not let it effect our relationship.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer your comments -- You know I'm aware of the economic models you described and of chaos theory which also throws a slight wrinkle into a straight-on ripple effect. But let's be honest -- marketing at it's best -- counts on the ripple effect you describe in order to help hypnotize us all into believing whatever the Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and Pennsylvania Avenue crowd have decided they want us to believe this week.
Now we can shut ourselves off from the airwaves, we can hide out in caves, we can even wear tin foil hats to keep the frequencies from invading our brain -- but let's be honest -- statistics are bound to bear out that there as many people who've had their experience of oneness with the cosmos who are in debt, confused and under the control of the Forces that Be, as anyone else. (And maybe even more so, because such experiences, as you know yourself, make it even more painful and difficult to deal with the craziness that we all witness everyday.)
So it's not that I don't share your conspiracy theory -- it's just that I don't necessarily believe the solution is being swept up into a cosmic vision or something of the like. Besides I'm not sure that such experiences are not simply generated by an interaction of chemicals in our brains that temporarily eliminates our physical perception of boundaries and so forth.
In conclusion, I think that while it's interesting to conceptualize "wholeness" or "enlightenment" and that such experiences often stimulate more compassionate behavior for some, we also need to be careful not to make an unsubstantiated quantum leap and assume that such experiences or perspectives provide any more effective or lasting solutions than the ones we generate from our admittedly limited perspectives from right here on earth.
I've expressed my opinion -- and I apologize if I've offended anyone by being a "disbeliever" -- but I feel obligated to speak my truth as well.
With respect (even if it may not seem like it),
Tarah
I'd like to invite us to move beyond critiquing other people's experiences and thus move beyond our opinions and really focus on our own actual experiences. We could have a long debate about whether such subjective experiences as we're exploring here are mere affectations of brain chemicals or are truly transcendent in a spiritual sense (or both).
ReplyDeleteBut that's missing the opportunity. The invitation is to share (knowing that whatever we say will be insufficient to describe) what you've experienced, feel, wonder, etc. That doesn't mean you can't wonder something contrary to what someone else has experienced. But let that be your wondering, not a refutation of their experience.
We've always worked to keep the tone respectful here, even when we don't see eye-to-eye.
Thanks,
Christopher
My apologies, crew... for not explaining the tone and protocol of this group well enough to those I invited. Thank you, Christopher, for the reminder.
ReplyDeleteYeah... for this dicussion, gang... let's get out of our heads for a bit... and I know that freaks some of us out... but here's the opportunity:
We can allow ourselves to actually experience what we're talking about here... and that's nearly impossible when we're playing in the lab with DNA or protein molecules (where we're the "objective" scientists, observers, technicians, or "pure" researchers).
I believe if we can accept our good host's invitation... it could lead us into something totally unexpected, profound, and... who the f#*k knows... maybe life-changing.
Your own SuperFreak,
JJ
Reading JJ’s comments reminded me of an experience I had nearly ten years ago (and Anna, I would guess you might remember this as well). One of my colleagues and I attended a creativity workshop (“out-of-the-box” thinking) for scientists. The rather eccentric facilitator of that event led us through what we at the time thought was a pretty silly exercise where we “traveled into the problem we were trying to solve, to see what we could learn from the inside out.” Much to my surprise, my colleague and I gathered some insight from that exercise that led to what is now a “trade-secret process” that is “owned” by the company I was then working for.
ReplyDeleteI recall, when we were back at our facility validating our “insight” and exploring the avenues that led from that new perspective, my colleague and I kept reminding each other that we shouldn’t share how we came up with this new process because it would strain people’s credulity in regard to our work.
Oddly, neither of us has re-engaged the technique we used that led to that process and I just realized why. To Anna’s earlier point, it was (and may still be) outside the bounds of “accepted science.” What also struck me as I remembered this experience is that the information we gleaned by accessing what felt like an “open-source” of consciousness is now “owned” by some business entity. As I reflect on the whole experience, the ownership aspect seems totally ludicrous now -- it makes no sense.
Did we become “one” with the molecule we were studying? Hard to say in any objective manner -- and that doesn’t really matter. The result of that experience yielded a result that is now saving lives and lessening the suffering of patients. I know this is “out-of-the-box” thinking, JJ -- but maybe what we’re exploring here does have relevance in our scientific work as well.
Food for thought, nonetheless.
Greetings! I undestand our core group is now gathering here (I've been reading through some of the past posts and have to say, I can see why JJ suggested that we spend some time here -- Wow!)
ReplyDeleteAs Ellio's partner in crime at the workshop in question, he and I were pretty cocky and dismissive of the "journey" we were asked to take. And, to tell the truth, I'm still pretty troubled on some level regarding what occurred.
But here's the real laugh, Ellio. do you remember the overly exuberant geeky engineer who was sitting next to Anna? I ran into him in Seattle the other day -- and he's been using that process to do all of his design work. The guy has patents too many to count on his work.
And he asked me, "So how have you guys expanded that process?" I kind of laughed, mumbled something and changed the subject. Of course the timing on the encounter with him and this discussion is pretty quirky. But why did he launch off into the cosmosphere of inventiveness and we've been here slogging out with just the use of our own brains?
And here's where my mind has taken this since you called me last night. Clearly we access another level of "insight" or "consciousness" through methods like guided journeys (I'm laughing as I type that) or meditation (and we all know the impact that has in our healing studies). So why are we so resistant, at times, to really putting these methods to work? And why are we so cynical? If someone in this brain trust has any insight on that, I'm all ears.
Let's face it, when astronauts stand on the moon and see planet earth and are so changed at a core level by that experience that they come back and dedicate their life to "consciousness" (and I'm speaking, naturally, of the Noetic Sciences Foundation) then something transpires that's substantial.
Gandhi crawls out relative obscurity and leads a nation to indepence, Nelson Mandella comes out of prison and changes a nation's fate as well. I'm having a hard time dismissing that there's something substantial at play whether I understand it and can quantify it or not.
So -- hey! A littl insight, anyone?
Yours truly,
Stan (the Science Man)
I have enjoyed reading the posts from all of you science folks and members of the brainiac posse. I've been in the pool with some of you before and had great fun, and since everyone has exhibited a willingness to get philosophically naked in this forum, I would love some input on a question that I've had in my mind for years and have yet to get any really satisfying answers to.
ReplyDeleteWhy is stepping out of "accepted" scientific modes of thought so frightening to those of you within the professional ranks?
Let's dispense quickly with the obvious issues of professonal and economic well-being, please, because that's an entirely OTHER discussion and we've already run up against that a couple of times in past forums, and quite painfully. Instead, I would like to hear about it from a much more human direction. I have noticed that almost all of you at one time or another have used words like "trepidation", "hesitation", "discomfort", "disorientation", etc. in relation to these discussions and I'm really, really interested in what that's like for you.
I wonder if your answers might offer us all some new material to chew on as the discussion continues. I thank you in advance for you indulgence.
Well, bko you kind of cut right to the chase, now don't you. I like that. I haven't had the pleaure of getting philosophically naked with you before, but it looks like I'm about to.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, the real reason I particularly like this question you've posed -- is that it actually gets to the heart of my question. Convenient, wouldn't you say? So here' my personal take on it -- now that you've bullied me into answering it.
Kidding aside, it's not about money for me -- though I'm sure for some people at a certain stage of their career, money and personal security are real issues. But -- due to particularly good timing -- I landed in a few right places at the right time and ended up with stock and options that have handled those issues.
For me -- truth be told (and I think this is the deeper underlying cause you're hinting at) -- it's about status, approval, and -- and I believe this is the big one -- not wanting to be banished from the Holy Order of Science.
That may sound facetious, but it's not the least bit so. We work most of our lives to establish credibility (which leads to position, status, grant money, access to resources, etc.). To step significantly out of bounds cam seem like throwing away all of you've worked for (including the ability to respectably roll into retirement with an academic book deal, some teaching posts, a consulting contract, etc.).
That all probably sounds trivial, but, to the contrary, I think the threat of banishment, embarassment, and loss of credibility generates enough fear to keep the present paradigm in place until the sheer momentum of ideas that exceed its boundaries finally wash over the wall and find the next boundary.
To say it in a few words -- there are not many who will bet their reputation on an "out-of-the-box" idea unless they think its genuinely got a chance of being accepted and is worth the risk. They may pursue things quietly, in the background, yes. But not in public -- not until it's deemed "safe" enough to bring it into the light of day.
That's my two cents worth. Would love to hear what the rest of the "brainac posse" has to say.
Standing tall (except when I'm not),
Stan
Stanley. I haven’t seen you in a while. Very nice to meet up again in this forum.
ReplyDeleteI have taken some time to observe my own reaction to Silvio’s challenge and now to bko’s very pertinent question. And while I don’t disagree with Stanley’s assessment (especially as it may apply for him), I also believe there’s a deeper level for me that’s more personal.
When you work in a scientific field (and the same would apply for life in general) one becomes comfortable with the established boundary conditions. On one level, we know they are artificial boundaries, but in another more fundamental way, there’s also a level of discomfort that comes with knowing that (as in the example of quantum physics and the impact it had upon previously held beliefs) the perspective that might be gained from beyond the “wall”, as Stanley puts it, may possibly invalidate your work, your world view, your belief structures, your sense of identity.
Significant world events or personal life events can obviously jar us into a more expanded reality as well. And while some become cosmic explorers or soul journey junkies, as a friend of mine calls it, most of us seem to value some measure of stasis.
I recognize that this is a mere beginning, in terms of an answer, but I have more work to do to climb a new ladder high enough to gain a bit more perspective. I’ll look forward, though, to others answers which, I’m sure, will shed light for me on my own limiting factors.
Warm regards,
Anna
My ex father-in-law had this story he used to tell at every wedding and family occasion (you may have heard some incarnation of it too as I have heard a number of different versions myself). It goes: “ A famous Wise Man was expected to visit a small town. His wisdom and advise had been sought by many in town, but there were some townsmen who felt threatened by this visit and wanted to challenge the Wise Man. They decided that one of the men would catch a bird and hold it between the palms of his hands so that the Wise Man would not be able to tell if the bird was dead or alive. They would then ask the Wise Man if the bird was alive. If he said “yes” the plan was to crush the birds neck between the mans palms and show the Wise Man that he had been wrong. If he answered “no,” the person holding the bird would let it fly, thus proving the Wise Man wrong. With this fool proof plan in mind they approached the Wise Man in the middle of the town square. “Wise Man, is the bird he is holding alive or dead?” they asked. The Wise Man looked at them all, and responded firmly: “The bird, my men, is what you want it to be!”
ReplyDeleteI think science falls into the same category as the bird most of the time. It is what we want it to be.
Ahhh! Welcome Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteAs always, you've contributed something to which I have no immedidate response -- and that is because just when I think I have figured out what I think about what you've said, I realize that I actually have changed my mind.
I'll just say this (and it applies to science and to my overall life):
My ego is not remotely interested in expanding the boundaries of my safe, very well-constructed life and model of the world (which has me and my needs, neatly placed at the center).
Though there seems to be some part of me that seeks to know of a deeper connection to my fellow beings and our wonderful planet, that part gets quickly muffled and mugged by its supposed guardian.
The question your story and statement has posed for me is this:
"What have I wanted science to be?" And would it be more responsible, had I asked instead, "What does science need to be in order to better serve the world?"
Enough for now. I'm on my way to the airport to volutarily place myself into the pleasant milieu of holiday travelers. What was I thinking?
Have a wonderful holiday!
Silvio
I don't know who Anonymous is, but I certainly understand what Silvio means by having a simple statement stimulate so many varying emotions. Since reading it on my lunch hour, I've covered the territory from "isn't that a nice sentiment," to "who the f#@k" does this person think they are?"
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to think that such a statement has come from someone very young or very naive. Either that or someone battleworn and very wise.
This is not an "enlightened" view I'm about to express, but it's honest to core:
Anonymous, I'm not sure what field you're in -- and if you've been able to live up to the statement you've made to us, then you are more remarkable than most -- but to go up against the established order and pretend that you can just "make science be whatever you want," is like telling an accountant that they can simply ignore the FASB Accoutning Standards and expect to stay employed (or be employable anywhere else).
I try very hard to bring as much "consciousness" and responsibility to my work environment as possible and I certainly take ownership for the choices I make, but there are somethings that may take generations to change.
I'm not sure if this is out-of-bounds to ask, but since you've challenged us all with your story, I'd like to know if you risk your career and family publicly to puruse your inner principles and passions.
Have you put your job and career on the line and risked being ostracized? If you have, I applaud you but would wonder if you're happy with your decision. And, if you continue to live your life that way, is it a life you'd recommend for others?
Sincerely,
Tarah
Tarah –
ReplyDeleteI do not know what has put you in the position of being so angry. I am neither naïve nor young, but I AM happy with my choices. And, in my own estimation, I have slowly accomplished that state of being precisely because I let go of my need to have others think like me.
I am responding very directly so that you can consider what it is that drives you to want to be a part of this blog discussion. I will not fight, nor do I have any desire to engage in intellectual competitions. I would invite you to consider the possibility that asking for information about a person and then proceeding to judge that person's potential answer before it is given may be a less effective approach than to simply represent yourself without putting others down. What is it you want? Why is this important enough to you for you to be combative about it?
You're right. I am angry -- a lot of life circumstances, I suppose, that I've let come out here. My apologies. I probably shouldn't participate here unless I can truly contribute instead of simply spewing my negativity out on everyone.
ReplyDeleteJJ thought it would be good for me to get involved in a good discussion like this, but clearly I'm not ready for that yet.
I appreciate your honesty Anonymous.
Sincerely,
Tarah
P.S. I'll keep reading as I think it will be good therapy for me.
Tarah,
ReplyDeleteAs you've expressed and are seeing here, diverse opinions are welcome and vital to this forum. So are respect and valuing of each others' points and experience.
You'll be the best judge of where you are in whatever process you might be working through. Know that you're welcome to participate here whenever you feel ready to simply take ownership for what you feel and are able to share thoughts without having them be against someone else (and that could happen as soon today... no time limit ... it's up to you).
One other point. Anonymous' questions are ones that would be asked of any of us had we made similar comments directed against another participant.
Thanks,
Christopher
My grandfather used to tell me very similar tale to the one Anonymous tells. But with different ending.
ReplyDeleteThe angry man asks the question of the wise old man because he has felt deceived and unfairly treated by those in power. His scheme is born out of the pain of such feelings.
When he asks the old man, if the bird is alive or dead, the old man replies, "It's fate is in your hands. Free it and you will be freed. Destroy it and you will have detroyed your own hope."
The angry man, shocked by the old man's knowledge, releases the bird and begins to weep as it soars into the air for he now realizes he has also free his own soul from the emprisonment which he had allowed the actions of other to create.
The wise man simply smiles, as the man, who once was angry, now has a face illuminated with joy and great peace. The man cannot speak, but his eyes swell with tears.
"It is you, who have freed yourself," the wise man tells him. But I will accept your gratitude on your behalf."
I have shared this tale many times over the years with my son, Nyguen, who is now a bioligist and a monk. He sees science as a way to appreciate and understand the beauty of life and its profound connectedness. I am not sure where he learned this. Perhaps from his mother. But he teaches me more about this every day.
Thank you for hearing my thoughts,
Trinh
At this point, I am drawn to re-introduce my question from last week, which was:
ReplyDeleteWhy is stepping out of "accepted" scientific modes of thought so frightening to those of you within the professional ranks?
Several of you have given very interesting responses, for which I am grateful, but I would also like to hear from more of you, if you are willing.
Further, I would like to add a second question that follows on my first, as well as from some of the interchanges we’ve had recently, and that is:
Why is it so frightening when someone questions the primacy of science as THE route for establishing validity?
I am not attempting to pick fights here. I really do want to know how it feels for you. What are your experiences with those questions as human beings who do science, and who have committed yourselves and your large talents to that path? I have no agenda here, beyond increasing my own understanding. And I do feel that it where it might take the discussion could ultimately add something to what we’re trying to discuss here.
And Tarah, if I can speak as someone who’s been around this bunch from the beginning, I think you will find that none of us are scared of anger. Many of us on the non-scientific side deal with severe conflict, powerful emotion and seemingly unresolvable problems on a daily basis and we’re a bunch of pretty battle-scarred old dogs, frankly. It’s for exactly that reason that we’re deeply committed to finding new ways to confront those difficulties, ways that don’t shut down our ability to be creative and compassionate while still allowing us to face them squarely and honestly. That requires approaches and language and levels of self-examination that many find uncomfortable. I know Chris well enough to say with some certainty that getting better at that is also a main reason this forum exists. None of us knows THE answer, and we are trying to find ways of not letting that hang us up and going forward anyway. Don’t be afraid to dive back in. Bring your anger and your big brain. Just bring your heart, too.
I can't speak for the rest of you... but I love turkey, stuffing, and pumpkin pie… no that’s not what I meant to say… I meant to say that I think we blame too much on "Science" as if it were its own entity. We are becoming the Holy Order ourselves… at least at some level (probably have been for a while, if you ask the new flock just coming in out of college).
ReplyDeleteWe also know that in order to conduct experiments… delve into the depths of how the body human functions… and of chemistry… genetics… and more… there are established procedures for validating theories of every kind. (I'll be Mr. or Mrs. BKO... do we know if he or she is a man or woman?... I'll be that the he/she BKO will confrim that even Eastern medicine has its processes for ensuring viability). But... big secret here... that's not the problem here... as time will reveal to us... if we are patient.
In the West, we have controlled conditions to limit variables, control groups to measure against the placebo effect, the demand for replicatability... you all know the drill… all of it does done to ensure that nothing… you know… immeasurable by the infallibility of our instrumentation slips into the equation. Because… we all know… if it cannot be measured… we do not know if it really exists (much less… if it is of any relevance or importance).
Let's face it gang... those processes were put in place to keep us from running "willy-nilly" as my dad used to say. But let's face another truth too... the machine of science as a business also places controls on the process… controls that extend beyond… and also utilize the scientific method for its own purposes.
Now don't start saying... oh my god... JJ has become one of "them" (the conspiracy theorists). Our businesses (which are science-based businesses) have a dual purpose (at least…)... to generate great scientific products that serve patients (according to a very specific definition of what serving them is)... and to make money... preferably, lots of money for the stockholders (and, hey gang… that would be us) and to keep the mysterious "powers that be" content.
And we… who have wandered outside the realm of pure research (a domain reserved for a special few who get to truly explore the depths of science with little or no agenda in case they find something marketable)... or who never made it in there in the first place... are in our jobs to develop and produce replicatable commercial products that meet FDA requirements and are then sold on behalf of the "owners" of those products (of which we are a part… lest we forget).
Therefore... my fellow brainiacs... none of us are in the position... as long as we are concerned about serving our current masters... to publicly depart too far from the accepted line of thought (which is supported by the business case... etc.). All of what we participate in is simply an act of our own complicity… that keeps us comfortable… safe… as Stan(ley) said. What does it… or will it take… for any of us to step out of that comfort zone? Wholeness? Please.
Until it comes up and bites us in the ass… wholeness is just a nice concept with a hint of liberal morality attached.
Not sure where this is going now... I realize I've just stumbled into a rant of sorts (influenced to some degree by wine... a really nice Chenin Blanc as a matter of fact). But hopefully someone can glean some meaning out of what I'm trying to say.
Yes? No?
Love you all you adorable dweebs!
JJ
JJ, my dear, your holiday celebrating self just afforded me a chance to do something I rarely do. You just posted a question (granted, I know it wasn't a serious one) to which I have a definite answer, and contrary to my usual mode of modesty I am amused enough that I will answer your question. BKO is a man, and I am the person who currently comes closest to being Mrs. BKO. Sorry – position taken. And neither Eastern nor Western science could help him if I found that he so much as even entertained the idea of challenging that fact.
ReplyDelete:)
Oh wow! So much I could try to explain about yesterday... but won't.
ReplyDeleteBut hey! Now we know BKO is a man and Anonymous is his gal pal... that's one I never figured on before (Christopher... you're so good at keeping everybody's anonymity).
Bottom line from yesterday: Though I said it less than elegantly... there's nothing I would really recant at this point. I think there's more I could add... or that others could add around those topics... and hopefully some of you will.
This has definitely been a wild month for the blonde science geek.
Life is beautiful!
JJ
So, JJ, thanks for the rant. I'm with you in hoping that lots of other folks will comment. Lots in there to think about.
ReplyDeleteHere's another question. What's wrong with willy nilly? Nature went along just fine for a very long time without human controls in place, and she doesn't seem to be doing all that well under our "supervision". If we were to think about all this from the perspective of wholeness, what are we gaining from the way we're doing it now?
And please be clear. This is not a sly attempt to sneak in an anti-science rant. I am not in any way anti-science or fuzzy about the benefits of scientific endeavor, and you know that from our previous interchanges. I am simply following your lead related to what all the motivations really are behind what the term "science" is used to describe in contemporary terms. In my mind, they follow on my previous (and by now irritatingly repetitious) questions about why certain kinds of questions related to accepted science are so often inflammatory.
And BTW, if you'll define "gal pal" for me, I'll be able to figure out whether I have one or not!:):)
I've given this conversation much thought over the last few days. And JJ's Thanksgiving soliloquy only added to my process. I believe that, in order to have a deeper discussion on this topic, we need to make some distinctions between what functions well and what does not -- in terms of promoting wholeness (or systemic wellness).
ReplyDeleteThe scientific method, which has evolved in terms of the systematized processes and procedures to ensure "accuracy" and replicatability, is not truly the problem per se, and is not unique in a general sense to Western science (i.e. all approaches to the acquisition of knowledge use some form of observation, experimentation, theorizing, validating, etc.).
The challenge, in my opinion at least, for Western science is that we stipulate that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the five senses. This is also based upon another limiting factor, and that is the evidence must be "measurable" (i.e. instrumentation which by its vary nature is not sophisticated enough to measure an entire spectrum of experience). There are, of course, special categories for semi-empirical evidence based on axioms and so forth, but my point is that by restricting our "knowledge" of reality to purely "measurable" evidence, we have ruled out a whole range of experience and knowledge that falls beyond those boundaries.
We all know the history of empiricism and its connection "logic" and the divide that took place at that time wherein the "extra-sensory" experience and the experience of subtle bodies of energy and of emotion were ruled out as being illogical, hysterical, and basically an impediment to rational thought.
In other words -- and men excuse me, this is not intended as a slight -- we eliminated the influence of the feminine from the scientific process (i.e. from the process of acquiring valid knowledge). Without this balancing influence, a rather one-sided approach has launched both science and religion on a lop-sided approach that is on the verge of destroying the world as we know it. (And I would hyptothesize that were the scenario reversed an equally destructive path may have been followed but by different means.)
If we don't address this need for re-introducing balance into our process, how can we possibly hope to experience, create, or be informed by "wholeness?"
Respectfully,
Anna
Yes... Anna... nicely stated. That's what I was trying to get at as well... but didn't have the right words to explain it.
ReplyDeleteAnd BKO... I'm just going off from Anonymous having laid claim to being the closest thing to a "wife" as you may have (therefore, gal=girl + pal=friend = girlfriend). Sorry... if I've overstated or assumed incorrectly... but judging from Anonymous' comment about Eastern nor Western medicine not being able to help should one refute... if I were you I would answer very carefully (take it from me... a woman).
Have a great weekend everyone!
JJ
P.S. And pony up with some answers Silvio... Ellio. Don't let the women do all the heavy lifting (though we're fully capable of it).
JJ, no need to step carefully on the Mrs. BKO thing. We've just been goofing with you and getting a chuckle in the process.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that we've come back to where we ended in the wellness topic. And that is that neither “wholeness” nor "wellness” is complete without a balance between East and West; masculine and feminine.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge I see in our returning to a balanced state of being and therefore a truly inclusive and participatory state of existence with nature, our bodies, and beyond is that we have financial/business/power imperatives that may stand to lose (or so it would appear) a significant portion of their tactical tools and possible positions of power by so doing.
I believe that it comes back to something that appeared in one of our other topics -- and that being the notion of whether one operates from the underlying belief in what I would categorize as temporary power (or transitory power -- power that comes and goes based on largely external circumstances); or authentic power (or innate power -- power that is inherently present internally and thus not dependent upon external forces, but only one's internal willingness to access it).
The Western worldview has largely been formed around the former concept of power (which inherently supports a mind set of scarcity and the need for imperialism [whether it is acted out on national, corporate, scientific, or communal stage]).
There is naturally (and necessarily from the holistic standpoint) a need and a place for both concepts of power. But in my opinion, it is far more difficult for one whose mind set and worldview are founded upon fragmentation and "lack" to be trusting and therefore truly inclusive of a viewpoint and foundational approach that is based upon inherent "abundance" and wholeness.
This lack of trust shows itself in our sense of superiority over nature; our having designated ourselves as nature’s stewards; our having named ourselves as the superior species whose privilege it is to wreak havoc and ruin or work to “conserve, preserve, and restore” nature after we have decimated it. This sense of moral superiority (or hubris) also shows up in terms of how we approach science (and thus medicine). Only those aspects that are measurable by our puny instrumentation may be considered to be evidentiary. All else is mere fabrication, emotionalism, or hallucinogenic mysticism.
We are, in the Western world, very biased, it would appear, toward the value of the left brain. The functions of right brain are something of which we must be cautious for they are often irrational. From the left-brain perspective, right brain functions are only of any real value when under the direction or supervision of the left brain.
Naturally, in truth, it is a whole-brained approach where both sides of the brain are utilized in a true inter-connected, integrated manner (not a half-brained approach) that is necessary for us to advance beyond the utterly archaic lunacy with which we are currently running the world (our corporations, industries, and various disciplines – including science).
There will be a day (I truly pray -- yes, Silvio, I too revert to this means when I am out of answers from within my small brain), that some day, whomever from the human race is left on this planet looks back and smiles as they say, “Remember when we silly humans thought they were in charge of how nature works.”
I would very much appreciate someone providing me with another way to see this, however, because I at times lose hope in terms of our ever reaching the balance that I feel is vital to a reasonable, survivable future.
Sincerely,
Ellio
Greetings, Ellio! Thanks for texting me. I'm happy to see the conversation has resumed. (Hello to everyone else as well.)
ReplyDeleteQuick questions for Ellio (or Anna, et al):
Would you say that the "left brain" by-in-large encompasses the more masculine functions of the brain; and the "right brain" encompasses primarily the more feminine aspects of the brain?
What do you suppose accounts for the preferential development (or perhaps over-use) of the left brain in Western society?
Does a left-brained view inherently see technological progress as superior to the seemingly more harmonious approach of indigenous peoples? Or is that simply a misuse of left-brained logic? (In other words, is this an inherent flaw or is it also possible that those who understand the workings of the left-brain utilized its logic flow to prejudicially influence the formation of logic for reasons of power and influence?)
These questions cropped up as I read yours and Anna's commentary, as well as BKO's questions.
If you feel it useful to the conversation, I'd love your thoughts. If, however, these questions are an untimely detour, I understand.
Thank you,
TN
TN, nice to have you back. I want to answer your questions in a way that doesn't depart from the critical path that I think we are forging here (we’re attempting to stay out of our heads a bit more and focus more on our own experiences for this round).
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, I want to acknowledge that KBF or DP (if they are still in touch) can probably give you far more definitive answers regarding the specifics of the brain's hemispheres than I can. But from my relative knowledge of brain function I think it's safe to say that most research indicates that left-brain functions are in the same department as what we typically consider to be masculine qualities (not from the standpoint of men as opposed to women, but the masculine qualities that could be utilized by either sex). Those left-brain qualities would include linear or sequential thought processing (vs. holistic thinking); logic based on external data (as opposed to implicit data); competition (vs. cooperation); reductionism (vs. integration), dualism (vs. holism), task orientation or focus, (vs. relationship orientation) etc.
It is also worth noting that, based on several well established, multi-decade-long studies that drew data from a variety of countries around the globe, that European-derived men exhibit these particular left-brained work style characteristics significantly more than do European-derived women and even more significantly than men or women of non-Northern European derived cultures.
But to your second point, I believe the left brain does not inherently see "technological progress" as superior. I think that the left brain's assessment depends on the data that is utilized in making a case one way or the other and the manner in which such data is presented.
I also believe it is an over-simplification to lump all indigenous people into one group. But if we were to create a category of peoples who have a culture and relationship with nature that reinforces their responsibility to and equality and connection with nature and its rhythms, I would tend to agree that such people or cultures have historically been classified as “primitive” by the male, left-brain dominant segments of cultures with strong Northern European influence (U.S., Australia, Germany, Austria, England, the Netherlands, etc.)
I say all of that to say this: I agree with Ellio that a whole-brained approach is an essential part of the experience of "wholeness" and, as importantly, to our ability to bring that experience into how we live our lives, interface with each other and the world, and make decisions regarding our relationships together. In other words, learning to value and utilize our whole brain may quite simply be vital to our continued well being and possibly our survival as a species.
As some have said here, food for thought anyway.
Thank you!
Christopher
I agree with both Christopher and Ellio. And while my agreement is based on my experience in critical care and having dealt with various brain injuries… much more meaningfully it is based on my own experiences of wholeness.
ReplyDeleteSomething I've noticed over the last six or seven years, is that the more I create the circumstances (through nature encounters, prayer, meditating and things like that) that bring me into a consciousness of unity and wholeness, the more I find I'm able to bring that way of being into my life -- with the people I meet, live with, and work with.
I'm a real believer that if we could somehow create the ability for many more people to have profound experiences of wholeness, this world would become a saner place filled with people whose primary concern was the true and holistic sense well being for themselves, each other and all of the forms of life (including the life of this living planet that is our home).
Love is the Only Power,
Jonnie
I’m going to depart from the experiential discussion ever so slightly to share with you some findings that I think will generate some further interest and discussion in this topic. Our kind host contributed some statistical findings in his commentary that captured my interest, due to a hypothesis that I have been developing with my colleagues.
ReplyDeleteIt has been our finding (and that of others who have conducted similar studies) that the more complex an environment becomes, the more the left brain is activated (in order to muster the focus required to sort through the complexity). The more the left brain becomes activated a person’s use of both hemispheres also tends to become imbalanced (and thus instead of functioning in a whole-brained manner, once leans more heavily on the dominant hemisphere to the extent to where the other hemispheric qualities become objects of derision).
Therefore, my fellow bloglings, it appears quite possible that the side effects of a growing civilization (with all of its complexity and noise -- an additional left brain stimulant), is that of the society becoming increasingly competitive, linear, dualistic, reductionistic, and so on.
Interestingly, civilizations who have prized contemplation, meditation, and the like are less likely to become as left-brain dominant because these activities stimulate right brain activity (and its characteristics including, holism, connectivity, cooperation, relationship, etc.).
Having become rather fascinated with these parallels, I re-visited a number of this blog’s previous topics and seem to find, within the discussion threads, evidence that the left brain paradigm which has been spread to various places around our little planet, in fact found its beginnings in the burgeoning civilizations of Europe and then the U.S. where industrialization and increasingly complex cultures and environments -- laden with increasingly dense noise pollution, stimulated, reinforced -- and the enculturated left brain dominance.
This would seem to add an interesting consideration regarding this conversation and the “paradigm conspiracy” of which Sir Christopher originally spoke.
I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments.
With a rather reserved gusto appropriate for such occasions,
KBF
Thanks, KBF, for your email. I'm in a rush at the moment, but would only add the following for your consideration:
ReplyDeleteBrain dominance theory is based on research showing that persons use different sides of their brains to process different kinds of information.
All persons use both sides of their brains holistically, but most individuals tend to prefer learning strategies associated with one side or the other. Such individuals are considered to be left-brain dominant or right-brain dominant. Some have about even preferences and are considered to have bilateral dominance.
The left side of the brain:
processes verbal, abstract, analytical information in a linear, sequential manner, looks at differences and contrasts, seeing small signs that represent the whole, and concerns itself with reasoning abilities such as math and language.
The right side of the brain:
processes non-verbal, concrete, and spatial information, looks at similarities in patterns, forming a whole picture, and processing parts in relationship to the whole, and is utilized in relationship to what are often considered artistic abilities such as music and graphics and other aesthetic endeavors.
Some have tried to simplify it by noting that the left brain tends to gravitate toward forward advancement, achievement, and linear progress, while the right brain is concerned about the impact such activities have on the whole (i.e. are more ecologically aware).
I believe that is a major over-statement, but there is some element truth to the direction of the idea.
I look forward to coming back at a more appropriate time and re-familiarizing myself with this conversation.
Warm regards to all,
Dot P
Thanks KBF, Dot P and others. What you've shared is interesting... but I have a more fundamental question.
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely concerned that the illness (and I call it that intentionally) that has spread throughout our world community (that of greed, imperialism, misplaced superiority, and intentionally manipulated divisiveness) is on the verge of creating a major collapse of our collective emotional and spiritual immune system.
It seems to me... quite honestly... that the collective karma that we have generated and allowed to be generated has accumulated such a rip tide effect that we could really be on the verge of a major ass-kicking by the planet.
Anybody else sensing the same thing? If so... what are we going to do about it? Because when I talk of wholeness... I'm talking about potential triage measures to regain the soul of the human race before we forget the potential we have.
Too strong? Frighteningly, I don't think so.
Christopher, my friend. Thank you for saying what has been gnawing at me for weeks. We, as people, have become fascinated with our own disease -- so much so that we can describe its symptoms perfectly -- we can revel in it (and do each night on the news). But we do little to explore, let alone institute a cure.
ReplyDeleteThe sad truth is, I believe, is that we are addicted to the adrenalin that fuels our own demise; addicted to the struggle for power, the need to be right or to be wronged.
An addiction, simply stated (and I speak from my daughter's experience in drug rehabilitation) is any behavior that we continue to pursue in spite of the fact that it is damaging to us and those around us.
Look around us. We consume until we go bankrupt. We consume, while millions starve. We consume and start wars to ensure that our consumption will not be interrupted. We have convinced our selves that our economy (i.e. our national financial health) is dependent upon continuing consumption of more and more largely unnecessary products and services. The rate of pharmaceutical prescriptions for stress-related syndromes and mental and emotional issues is higher than ever in the U.S. (particularly with women). Our prisons are disproportionately full of our minority populations. Our environment is showing signs of radical ecological shifts that could lead to devastating consequences (and the fact that some of you just said to yourselves, “But we don’t have enough real evidence of that,” is evidence in and of itself).
And yet still, we march forward with progress being touted as the value of prime importance. Progress is clearly, according to our actions, much more important than people; and substantially more important than the eco-system in which we live that supports the delicate balance that allows us to live.
We, as a species, are living in mass insanity. We are so far from "wholeness" that I'm often not sure where to even begin to make a difference. Most daunting, I realize that our return to wellness as a species will likely take far beyond my lifetime. But rather than surrendering to it, I believe we must continue to do even the "small" things that are within our reach each day, that come from an inner place of wholeness. If we do, the exponential outcome could be gratefully surprising.
That is what keeps me going each day; and what inspires me to keep traveling the globe on the company's dollar -- so that I can have an expanded reach that allows me to be a voice for true health (which itself is now a radical concept).
Well, enough for now, my friends and colleagues. The cat, as you say, is out of the bag now and I have said what is in my heart to say.
I am very interested to hear if I stand alone, in this group with our kind host, or if this perception is more broadly felt.
With kind regard,
Silvio
Silvio, I feel like the co-dependent person in a family about now. Because, having read your understandably gloomy diagnosis, I find myself saying, "But wait. We are making progress. Yes, there's a long way to go, but we are taking good steps."
ReplyDeleteIn our organization alone (which has now begun to have an impact on our communities) we have begun to infuse the value of people and the environment into our culture and into our decision-making process. So I agree with you that we can be a voice and a stand for wholeness. We can model a new values system that seeks balance and right decisions from a far more holistic perspective.
It's taken us almost five years of continual work here, but we have a different work environment and have created a different sensibility in our surrounding communities.
Yes, we understand that an illness, as Christopher called it, has crept into our societies, and work cultures, and our world political scene.
We also fervently believe that we have the power to change it -- one person at a time, one department at a time, one site at a time, one town at a time.
With conviction,
Michelle
Michelle just exited my office moments ago after telling me that I needed to give some support to a more hopeful view than the one that was emerging in this blog. I'm not sure I can do that fully and here's why.
ReplyDeleteWhat Michelle is not telling you, is a part of the story that I’ve kept largely private -- until now. The rest of the story is that it took almost three years (prior to the five year change process that she mentioned) of her campaigning, coaching, begging, and demanding that we face the truth about our then toxic culture, before we actually listened deeply enough to cause us to do something about it.
The other piece that was crucial to our moving from an evolutionary change process to a revolutionary process within our organization was my own near-death experience. I’ll spare you the details, but will reflect on something that Jonnie brought up -- and that is that there is something truly transformational, if not transcendent, that occurs when we are thrown into a new more fully illuminated glimpse of reality. I am not entirely sure that Michelle, instead of becoming the champion of a new healthier work culture and community outreach, would not have been fired for being a pain in the ass, had I not had my encounter with the “bigger picture.”
So to Jonnie’s point, how can we create or induce experiences of the bigger picture without having to take people to the point of death? Because it was the purpose, clarity, and determination I brought back from that experience that fueled our own company’s cultural revolution and that continues to inspire, drive, and motivate me to ensure its continuance into the future.
Short of discovering such an experiential process as Jonnie has envisioned, how do we turn the tide?
Sincerely,
WC
"If one drop of purifying essence can bring sweetness, aroma, and a pleasureable flavor to an entire bucket of water, cannot one person's experience of true enlightenment change the nature of his family, village, and beyond?"
ReplyDeleteThis illness of which you speak is very old. It has invaded the hearts and minds of our ancestors, our parents, and now our generations.
ReplyDeleteBut we should not be ones to humor ourselves. This illness is very stubborn. It does not go away very easily because it feeds on the strongest addiction of all -- the belief that we are important! To be important we will buy almost anything and we will tell ourselves many stories to justify actions that otherwise would be most horrible to us.
Ask yourself a simple question. Are you willing to be unimportant? To make only the smallest difference (or perhaps no difference at all)? I did not think so. Until we can say, "yes," with great energy and enthusiasm, we are part of the problem, addicted to the very lie that perpetuates the illness of which we refer.
You may say, Trinh has gone too far now. Please tell him to go away. This would be a wise thing. Trinh has become dangerous and should be banned.
Thank you for hearing my thoughts,
Trinh
Silvio, et al, I don't think you or any of us are alone in perceiving that we have reached a time when we need to look at the deeper underlying causes and motivations to the challenge we're creating for ourselves, our species, and so many other sentient beings on this planet.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, my last short missive was really a result of an email conversation I had with BKO where he really brought up the analogy of a disease... and so I feel assured he's of a similar view as well. I'm sure he'll chime in soon as time allows to give us a much more clear picture of what he sees as some of the possible (if not probable) underlying issues at hand.
Thanks,
Christopher
P.S. Trinh, your dangerous nature is one of the many characteristics you possess that makes you such a valuable part of our blog family.
Trinh, I found the deep compassion of your last post very moving. With the last posts from Chris, Silvio, WC and Nguyen in mind as well, I’d like to play a small word game with your statements that reflects the thoughts you have produced in my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe pathological need to be important is a perfect way of characterizing the “disease” we are collectively suffering from, and that made me wonder. Could we get some additional perspective by flipping that idea around and looking at it from the obverse direction as well? What if everything and everyone, without exception, is vitally important? Could another angle on Trinh’s crucial point reveal itself around the idea that our cultural and spiritual illness is caused, at least in part, by because we have allowed our sense of our own importance to become so bloated and narrow that we’ve cut ourselves out of relationship with everything else? Is the problem that we’ve placed importance ONLY on ourselves (or our tribes, our countries, our companies, our families, our species, etc.) and forgotten how we are unavoidably related to the greater structure? Could that have anything to do with our difficulty in even conceiving the idea of wholeness? And could it be the reason we encounter so much anger and resistance in ourselves when we try to look back from that bloated, disconnected place on the holes we have torn in the fabric by allowing ourselves to become this way?
We all know the name we give to elements of an organism that begin uncontrolled growth without reference to the greater system. That name is cancer. If we consider all the elements of our world as collectively comprising an organism, and we apply the above definition to its current state, it would appear that we are very ill, that the disease is spreading like wildfire, and that we are not moving nearly fast enough to fix it. In many ways, we are not moving at all to fix it, because we’ve become addicted, as Silvio has pointed out, to the heady downhill rush toward our own destruction and can’t find the brakes.
Trinh’s comments about “unimportance” take on great resonance here, because the balancing of the equation necessary to stop this slide, no matter what direction we choose to look at it from, requires actual change. We can produce great numbers of studies and intellectually parse the data to create stacks of elegant conclusions, but no matter how high we build them, none of them will make us one whit wiser. Smarter perhaps, but not wiser. If we wait to for “proof” (another one of our cultural addictions), we will fail. Where is that change going to occur? Are the politicians going to do it? Are the corporations going to do it? Are the religions? The universities? The answers to those questions certainly aren’t difficult to see. Conversation is stimulating and helpful, but until we’re willing to start looking at the assumptions we’ve made about the way we live and what we’re entitled to, nothing will change. And if that change occurs, it won’t occur in the distant halls of power. That change will happen right out at the end of our own noses, and it will happen because we got up this morning and grew the balls to say “ENOUGH!”.
What now, folks?????????????
Hmmmm... I'm going to have to sit with all of this for a few days. All of your comments are working me over just a bit.
ReplyDeleteBKO, I've decided you're a subversive. And I mean that as a compliment.
More later,
Anna
It appears we have come to a perfect segue point. I'd like to invite you to add further comments to the new topic just posted which is entitled, "Naked Genius -- Being the Difference We Want to See in the World."
ReplyDeleteI genuinely appreciate everyone's contributions and invite each of us to take it now to the next level.
Sincerely,
Christopher