Well, it's several days after November 1st... the intended date of re-starting the conversations here... but one additional week of travel held me up.
As I've been out on the road, working with organizations on topics like collaboration, inclusion, empowerment, and thinking more ecologically (is it good for me? my team? the organization? the planet?), I've also been re-reading a provocative book entitled, "The Paradigm Conspiracy." The book's premise (at least as I interpret it) is that there is an overarching paradigm or unconsciously agreed upon foundation of thought that people must be controlled (we must control others or be controlled)... and perhaps even more fundamental a belief that is labeled in the book "The Four Agreements" as being the Great Lie -- that great lie being the belief that we are not Whole -- and that we are separate -- not connected.
The question I'm probing now (which would love your thoughts and input on) is this:
What is your belief regarding our innate Wholeness... our Connectedness. Is it a myth? A future possibility? A fantasy? A longing to reconnect with the womb? Is it healthy? Will it provide us with a fundamental understanding from which to solve some of our greatest challenges (personally and societally)? Or could it be a hindrance?
Please join in. Your thoughts, questions, skeptical notions, and humor are always welcome.
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"
PPS. If you're just joining us or would like a view of some of our past discussions, please visit our last posts:
Incomparable Genius -- Treating an Irreplaceable Being
or
Global Genius -- Creative Solutions for a Crazy World
Views of those commenting have not been checked for accuracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog publisher or his associates.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The Paradigm Conspiracy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Greetings,
ReplyDeleteI'm a friend of JJ's. She'd spoken of this blog so enthusiastically for months and just when I was ready to get involved, it went on holiday. How very European of you.
So last night, when JJ emailed me to announce "It's back!", I decided I'd better move quickly and here I am -- the first to comment on the new topic. And, I must say, it's quite a topic.
I've studied and contemplated the idea of ontology for some time and here, it appears to me, we are exploring a fundamentally ontological question. What is (or what constitutes) wholeness? Are we whole? And as I mull that question over in my mind I naturally am led to the notion of a holon -- something that is whole in itself and is yet part of a larger system as well.
But while this exploration helps me begin to grasp the philosophical concept of wholeness (a whole within a whole) and how it might explain the delusion of separateness in which some of us may suggest that we live, the implications of these ideas as they relate to a paradigm of control are still not fully connecting for me.
I'd love to have one of the robust minds that may perhaps visit this topic add their views. 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?
Sincerely,
Tarah
Well kudos! Nothing like coming back with a bang. This is a topic that is provactive on so many levels (which I love). And I am intrigued by the questions that follow the set up... particulary the notion that holism could be a hindrance. Hmmmm... so many thoughts rushing through my mind.
ReplyDeleteMore later, but my I couldn't resist the urge to tell you that I'm very enthused to have our forum back in motion.
Thank you!
Well, well, my friends. Now we're down to the real fundamentals. Wholeness; the myth of separation; control. It is as if we are re-visiting Rome at the time Christianity was conscripted by the Roman government (to re-visit Ellio's earlier reference).
ReplyDeleteThink about it. The message of Jesus was to proclaim our wholeness and our connection to one another and the divine. That type of understanding, though, makes it very difficult for one to feel the need to strive for things of a superficial nature; or to be controlled by a government. It is why the true message of Christianity has been kept under wraps even to this day.
But this is just my opinion, of course. Being a man of science, I am, perhaps, not one who should speak about religion. And yet, I do. Being schooled by Jesuits leaves its impression, I suppose.
I look forward to our discussion.
Nice to be back,
Silvio
Wow! Don't even want to get into debating the origins of Christianity, so I'll leave that to some of you who have inhabited these environs a little longer than I. But to Tarah's point, here's how I see wholeness playing into relationships (and the element of control with which I suspect we all dance). If I knew deeply, intimately that I was, in fact, whole and that I was was similarly connected to each person with whom I came in contact, perhaps I'd stop looking for other people to fill my empty places and stop blaming them when they didn't.
ReplyDeleteThat notion, in and of itself, could begin to transform my world. I suspect that it could have a similar effect on the world at large as well.
Thanks for the invitation JJ. Having read some of the previous commentaries, this loos to also be a most interesting discussion.
Yours truly,
Peter N
This topic is not irrelevant to the discussion we were engaged in regarding healthcare, but I appreciate the broader context provided in this post. Truth is, until we come to some deeper sense of understanding around this topic, I'm not sure we could solve a more specific application involving this notion in other areas like wellness.
ReplyDeleteThe question for me is this (and it's one we've wrestled with within our organization as we moved forward with some of the more "forward thinking" initiatives we have in our organization):
If one accepts the notion that we are innately whole, how does one explain the pervasive lack of this view and understanding throughout the world; and where does one begin to more fully understand how to engender this mindset beyond the merely intellectual approach generally used during such conversations. In other words, it would seem that in order for this "understanding" of wholeness to be of some effect, one would have to have the experience of wholeness not merely the idea about it.
I'm enthusiastically awaiting your responses and our further discussion.
Kind regards,
WC
Hey... just flying by to say, "Helloooo!"
ReplyDeleteI'll be back later this week to comment. This is a topic that our own mind freak, Christopher, and I spent several hours discussing a little over a year ago and it's left me with a lot of questions in my head still to this day.
One of my bigger questions (the one I perhaps fear the most) is: What if it's not true? What if we are simply broken fragments of ourselves?
I'm pretty stoked though... that we're revisiting this now. Maybe we can chase some of these ghosts out of my head (you're a devious one CH... that's why I like you).
Rockin' love to you all,
SuperGirl (JJ)
I find it interesting that as enthused as everyone is, no one (myself included) has really ventured very deeply into the topic yet. (WC has given it a stab... Silvio reverted to his Jesuit self... JJ got paranoid). Perhaps I can take another faltering step myself or at least say something inflammatory (as if Silvio had not already tried to cover that territory).
ReplyDeleteIt is sadly amusing that the concept of wholeness is not an inherent part of our overall approach to business, relationships, life, wellness, etc. Christopher referred to the paradigm conspiracy -- a notion propagated by those in power (I presume) in order to keep us feeling that we are not sufficient, need guidance, require new products and services, and so on. But regardless of how the paradigm began, it certainly seems to be the case that the prevailing mindset today is one that points to anything anything but innate wholeness.
I'm not sure whether some his questions were intended to be humorous, sarcastic, or purely trying to allow for an openness to multiple points of view, but the question posed by our host, wondering whether the notion of wholeness could be harmful bothered me. What exactly did you mean by that question? In what way could accepting our innate wholeness be detrimental to us?
And as I say this, I realize it may be better if someone began answering Tarah's question since (and appropriately so) it was the first response: What is wholeness?
Finding myself somewhat frustrated by my inability to approach this subject more robustly,
Michelle
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're not the only one curious about the questions I asked at the beginning of this post. More in particular the query about there being some aspect of perceiving our wholeness that is harmful.
Let me give you a sense of why I think that is a legitimate question. First, is it possible that in a society where wholeness has not be taught (and/or likely experienced by most) that acting as if it were true (even if it is) might lead people to act in ways that could severly complicate their lives?
Second, following on this thread, might we need to actually teach not only what wholeness is, but also what it feels like and how to make decisions in a seemingly fragmented world from a place of wholeness?
As to the definition of wholeness, I'm going to wait for another handful of contributors to provide their thoughts before launching into my own diatribe in that regard, since I'm deeply interested in how others might see and define this notion. So please, feel free to jump in. There are no wrong answers around this topic (after all... it's fairly unexplored territory for most of us, I believe).
Thank you!
Christopher
P.S. I wouldn't classify JJ as paranoid... I saw her question as being more an honest reflection of many of our own inner-dialogues. But to me, and I believe JJ will agree... the bigger, far more threatening question is... "What if we are whole and have just been playing it safe?"
I received note from JJ this week which brought me much happiness in seeing that our conversation has resumed. This topic is of much importance and is hopefully bubbling up in many places around our planet.
ReplyDeleteFrom the time I was a very young boy, my parents taught me that I and all beings are exquisite realizations of the divine mind. Each person and creature is unique and must be treated with great respect for each is a "one-of-a-kind" manifestation of the One Mind. Problems arise, however, when we think this uniqueness only applies to us or our clan. Then we begin to allow our little monkey mind to run wild and do things that sane person would not do.
This is one way "wholeness" is dangerous. But this is not true wholeness. As the beaming child Tarah has spoken, we are whole beings in whole system. That means each being and the whole system is sacred and must be treated this way if we are to live in peace and well-being. Otherwise, we will surely be destined to experience much inequity and hardship in our world (it seems that I read somewhere that this is what's happening in our world-- perhaps we are letting our monkey minds run the world).
But I know very little and it would perhaps be best if you did not even let this comment be read by anyone.
Thank you for your patience,
Trinh
What is the reason for our great fear, my fellow travelers?
ReplyDeleteEinstein said that "Our separation from each other is an optical illusion of consciousness."
Can we consider the possibility that this is true? What if we were, in fact, one soul... one mind... one being... experiencing itself through its myriad of seemingly fragmented parts?
Native tribes have carried this understanding for generations... though now it is fading away due to an intersection with those whose belief in "empirical evidence" would convince them otherwise.
Is is 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?
While this fear may be real to us... we kid ourselves... we are an integral part of this world... and even knowing of our wholeness we are unlikely to depart it so quickly because we are inextricably connected to it.
It has been said that, "The concept of the God-fragment within you has power. It can be contemplated, but it cannot be experienced as a dominant reality in a human instrument. Through this contemplative approach you can learn discernment, and through this discernment you will learn how to navigate in the world of shadows and echoes in such a way that you bring changes that are in accord with the objectives of First Source."
My invitation to all of us, while we contemplate this idea of wholeness, is to also allow ourselves to begin to experience it in the world around us... in those we meet... and in ourselves. Listen to the messages that come to you from this level of consciousness. Allow the wholeness to seep in and inform your life.
Many blessings to all,
Shayla
When I got word that our blog family was re-assembling, I felt such a positive energy move through me. And then... when I visited our site and saw the topic... I was really touched. Somehow we all seem to forget that we are whole... perfect... connected. It's perfect timing... for my life... to be reminded of this knowing.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read our new member's comments (welcome Shayla) I was happy to see she'd used a portion of one of my favorite quotes. As I pulled out the more complete quote, I thought it might provide even more perspective... here it is:
"A human being is part of the hole... He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical
delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening
our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a
foundation for inner security."
~ Albert Einstein
This is what I think our gift is... our opportunity... to embrace the world that we live in... see its divinity... find the light in each other.
I'm really looking forward to sharing this more with all of you as we each dig deeper into our souls and try to find the words to describe what has no words to describe.
Much love and peace to you,
Jonnie
Hello to everyone!
ReplyDeleteI'm joining your conversation at Tarah's request. She felt that the work and research I've done in this area as it pertains to our day-to-day three-dimensional world might have some relevance on this discussion.
As I see it, we, the human denizens of our planet, are involved in a whole concatenation of mutually-reinforcing developments with far-reaching implications for all life on earth as well as for human consciousness. One of these is the unprecedented global interdependency of peoples or nations brought about through modern mass industry, commerce, communications and transport -- developments that were in turn made impossible by modern science and technology. New technology now making its appearance will further intensify societal interconnections. The change that has already been brought is momentous, and its most extraordinary feature is that all the different aspects of societal existence, taken singly and together (including politico-socio-economic conditions, human rights, the quality of the environment, international security and peace), are virtually indivisible. It makes of us our brothers keepers, whether we are ready to be or not.
This globality illustrates remarkably a fundamental proposition of the perennial philosophy. namely that the different dimensions of existence, including the spiritual and moral. the mental, emotional and physical. are inextricably and dynamically interrelated.
As yet the interdependence seem to exacerbate discord, competiveness and conflict among the groups and nations concerned more often than not. Nevertheless, this ubiquitous condition is perceptibly influencing the thinking and behavior of nations in a positive way as well, if only out of sheer self-interest. The different nations and peoples are increasingly compelled and motivated to support the entire collectivity. In the longer run, unless we annihilate ourselves, the imperatives in our sharing one small planet will serve powerfully, especially in combination with certain other profound trends, to promote and foster a tolerant, broader, more inclusive perspective – eventually a planetary consciousness.
Finally, one might ask, why is this evolution of consciousness and technology taking place? My personal belief, as supported by the view of many others in the field of consciousness evolution, is that we are evolving toward the realization of our innate spiritual state – that of wholeness and unity. Time will tell, perhaps if we are correct – or (and this goes to one of the blog host’s questions) is this innate drive actually impossible to be realized in this three-dimensional state and therefore destined to end in frustration and self-destruction? I realize this is not the pleasant scenario for which we all may hope, but I think it must be a possibility we must be willing to consider.
I look forward to more of your thoughts as well. This conversation is, as Trinh suggested, bubbling up all over the planet.
The very best to you all,
Anna
Good day, my friends. After finally landing back at home after three weeks traveling the globe, I was pleased to see that our conversation has resumed and with a roar!
ReplyDeleteI feel most fortunate that I tuned in again just after the comments by Anna (who I feel as though I know). In any case, I believe she has defined, in so many words, the dualistic dilemma that has been at hand for centuries (to which I have referred before).
As one of my early mentors taught me, our modern worldview is largely based on Western science (i.e. science as defined by Europe, the U.S. etc.) which, in terms of its goals of prediction, control, and generation of manipulative technologies, is amazingly successful. Nevertheless, it is an artifact of Western culture and it does have its limitations. The core of the current challenge to the scientific worldview can be taken to be "consciousness," which has come to be a code word for a wide range of human experience, including conscious awareness or subjectivity, intentionality, selective attention, intuition, creativity, relationship of mind to healing, spiritual sensibility, and a range of anomalous experience and phenomena. Efforts toward incorporating within the scientific purview any or all of this territory has proven to be an extremely difficult task.
The fundamental reason for this difficulty appears to be that Western science has been caught in a basic dualistic trap-that of considering the subject doing the mapping as separate from the map. Getting a more accurate map (more based on modern physics, more "holistic", more "systems") will not solve this problem. Rather, we must realize that thoughts are not merely a reflection on reality, but are also a movement of that reality itself. The mapmaker, the self, the thinking and knowing subject, is actually a product and a performance of that which it seeks to know and represent.
Modern Western science fundamentally entails three important metaphysical assumptions: a. Realism (ontological-leads to epistemological conclusion). There is a real world which is, in essence, physically measurable (positivism). We are embedded in that world, follow its laws, and have evolved from an ancient origin. Mind or consciousness evolved within that world; the world pre-existed before its appearance, and continues to exist and persist independent of consciousness. b. Objectivism (epistemological and ontological) That real world exists independently of mind, and can be studied as object. That is, it is accessible to sense perception and can be intersubjectively observed and validated. c. Reductionism (epistemological). That real world is described by the laws of physics, which apply everywhere. The essence of the scientific endeavor is to provide explanations for complex phenomena in terms of the characteristics of, and interactions among, their component parts.
These underlying assumptions are directly challenged by a wide range of data regarding "anomalous" phenomena, and by a wide range of human experience. The critical epistemological issue is whether we humans have basically one way of contacting Reality (namely, through the physical senses) or two (the second being the deep intuition). The importance of the issue shows up in a central ontological question namely whether consciousness is caused (by physiological processes in the brain, which in turn are consequences of the long evolutionary process) or causal (in the sense that consciousness is not only a causal factor in present phenomena, but also a causal factor throughout the entire evolutionary process). Western scientific method urges toward the former choice in both cases, whereas the phenomena of consciousness suggest the latter choice in both cases.
It would seem that in order to advance this discussion past the point of “stuckness” (I realize this is not a word, but am a loss for how else to describe this in English), we must temporarily, at least, take the latter position. Otherwise, I’m concerned, we could get caught in having to produce “evidence” which will have its time and place – but not at this stage of the discussion, I would suggest.
Very good to be with you all again,
Ellio
Greetings, Ellio! We have met – several times in the past – at the conferences at Big Sur. I’m surprised and maybe a little disappointed that what I’ve said here still has a familiar ring to it after almost ten years (one hopes to have advanced one’s knowledge and philosophy over the course of a decade). Nevertheless, I appreciate your comments (and want to say, thank you to our spirited catalyst JJ who both invited me and then emailed me upon your response. Be well, JJ – you’re a sensitive soul and you experience these journeys so personally).
ReplyDeleteBut now, in response to your thoughts, Ellio, I believe that a step toward resolving this long-standing impasse may be the recognition that it is, in a sense, a historical accident that physics was taken to be the root science. That led naturally enough to such ideas as seeking objectivity through separating observer and observed; taking reality to be essentially that which can be physically measured; and seeking explanations of the whole in terms of understanding the parts.
But what if the study of living systems had been taken to be the root science, rather than physics? Had this been the case, science would undoubtedly have taken a more holistic turn. It would have recognized that wholes are self-evidently more than the sum of their parts, and would have adopted an epistemology more congenial to living organisms. It might well have adopted a different ontological stance in viewing reality.
Such an alternative ontological stance, as first mentioned in this topic by our friend, Tarah, was initially proposed, in the terms in which we are now discussing it, by philosopher, Ken Wilber, that of considering reality as composed of "holons," each of which is a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole-"holons within holons." (For example, atom-molecule-organelle-cell-tissue-organ-organism-society-biosphere.) Holons at the same time display agency, the capacity to maintain their own wholeness, even as they are also parts of other wholes. A holon can break up into other holons.
But every holon also has the tendency to come together with others in the emergence of creative and novel holons. In regard to one of my previous comments, I believe we are discovering more deeply every year that evolution is a profoundly self-transcending process: It has an utterly amazing capacity to go beyond what went before. The drive to self-transcendence is built into the very fabric of the universe. The self-transcending drive produces life out of matter, and consciousness out of life.
Furthermore, as I’m sure most of us recall, holons relate "holarchically." (This term seems to be much more suitable for our discussion because "hierarchy" has a bad name, mainly because people confuse natural hierarchy [inescapable] with dominator hierarchy [pathological].) Thus cell-holons are parts of organ-holons, which in turn are parts of organism-holons, which are parts of community-holons. For any particular holon, functions and purposes come from the next level up in the holarchy; capabilities depend upon the next level down.
Therefore, within such a representation of the global system, let think through how goals are achieved and problems get resolved. In the holarchic picture of reality, the scientist-holon seeking to understand consciousness is in an intermediate position. Looking downward in the holarchy (or to the same level, in the social sciences), and exploring in a scientific spirit of inquiry, it is immediately obvious that the appropriate epistemology is a participative one. That is, it recognizes that understanding comes, not alone from being detached, objective, analytical, coldly clinical, but also from cooperating with or identifying with the observed, and experiencing it subjectively.
This implies a real partnership between the researcher and the phenomenon, individual or culture being researched; an attitude of "exploring together" and sharing understandings. Looking upward in the holarchy, it is apparent that the appropriate epistemology involves a holistic view in which the parts are understood through the whole. This epistemology will recognize the importance of subjective and cultural meanings in all human experience, including experiences-such as some religious or interpersonal experiences-that seem particularly rich in meaning even though they may be ineffable.
In a holistic view, such meaningful experiences will not be explained away by reducing them to combinations of simpler experiences or to physiological or biochemical events. Rather, in a holistic approach, the meanings of experiences may be understood by discovering their interconnections with other meaningful experiences.
For anyone who has practiced or studied Zen, you will immediately see, of course, the comparative similarity between the foregoing philosophy and the much historical precedential description of the Relative and the Absolute. If this ontological stance is accepted, a good many seemingly opposing views in Western thought become reconciled. From the level of the human-holon, the scientist looks mainly downward in the holarchy; the mystic looks mainly upward. Science and religion are potentially two complementary but entirely congenial views; each needs the other for more completeness.
In Western philosophy there have been three main ontological positions: the materialist-realist, the dualist, and the idealist. Again, the materialist looks downward, the idealist upward, and the dualist tries to reconcile fragments of the two-but all represent but partial glimpses of the holarchic whole.
Now I can already hear some of your thoughts (or perhaps my own critical voices inside) saying, “But what will it take to reach such a reconciliation?” Excellent question – for which I hope one of you has an answer.
Kindly,
Anna
P.S. And forgive me for rattling on. I get very passionate about this topic, but will try to be less verbose in the future.
Welcome, Anna.
ReplyDeleteWe haven’t crossed paths before, but I am excited to have another great mind participating in our discussion.
I’d like to mention, (not to detour our topic), that some of Anna’s last comments point to the very challenge we were discussing in the wellness topic? More specifically her comment regarding holiarchy:
“This term seems to be much more suitable for our discussion because "hierarchy" has a bad name, mainly because people confuse natural hierarchy (inescapable) with dominator hierarchy (pathological).”
And again her words, “…a scientific spirit of inquiry, it is immediately obvious that the appropriate epistemology is a participative one. That is, it recognizes that understanding comes, not alone from being detached, objective, analytical, coldly clinical, but also from cooperating with or identifying with the observed, and experiencing it subjectively.”
Modern medicine, like much of our science, in my humble opinion, has allowed itself to fall prey to its own detached, dominator hieracrchy and has been unwilling to see that this pathology (so well put, Anna) is as much a part of the contagious spread of disease and other maladies as are the bacterial, genetic, and viral forms that we systematically target.
Anna’s ultimate question regarding “what will it take” to reach reconciliation is of great interest to me (and I’m sure to most, if not all of us participating in this dialogue). Once again, I’m grateful to have a forum (and an anonymous one at that) where this exploration can take place with such vital openness.
Thank you,
WC
My, my... hats off to Sir Christopher for re-stimulating such a discussion. Reading the re-invitation email has provided some relief for this rather dull old bastard from his scholarly boredom. I'm still awaiting the return of some of our other more scandalous lot and hope we have not lost them in the fray (where are Rizzin, BKO, the lovely BV, and the mysterious Anonymous?).
ReplyDeleteBut I don't want to dally too long, because I do have something of some seeming substance to contribute (hard as that might be to believe). And it is this...
As I'm sure many of you are aware, research on perception, hypnosis, repression, selective attention, mental imagery, sleep and dreams, memory and memory retrieval, acculturation, etc. all suggests that the influence of the unconscious on how we experience ourselves and our environment may be far greater than is typically taken into account. Science itself has never been thoroughly re-assessed in the light of this recently discovered and most pervasive influence of the unconscious mind of the scientist.
The contents and processes of the unconscious influence (individually and collectively) perceptions, "rational thinking," openness to challenging evidence, ability to contemplate alternative conceptual frameworks and metaphors, scientific interests and disinterests, scientific judgment-all to an indeterminate extent.
What is implied is that we must accept the presence of unconscious processes and contents, not as a minor perturbation, but as a potentially major factor in the construction of any society's particular form of science.
Having spent considerable time over the years studying creativity and search for the origins of innovation, I've been intrigued because the implications of research on consciousness go even further.
They suggest an interconnection at a level that has yet to be fully recognized by, as you've called it, "Western science," and throw into doubt the pervasive conception of a world dominated by competition. The ontological stance of the universe as holarchy (as Anna and Ms. Tarah have suggested) appears to have great promise as the basis for an extended science in which consciousness-related phenomena are no longer anomalies, but keys to a deeper understanding; a science that transcends and includes the science we have. But the most important thing is not to accept a particular answer, but to open the dialogue about the metaphysical foundations of our Western science (or as I prefer to think of it the Medieval Science of yesteryear).
I can think of no better way to engage in the dialogue to which I refer than under the topical banner of "Wholeness."
I look forward to more discussion and hope we will venture even further beyond the borders of acceptability.
With the fondness only a fine cognac can conjure, yours truly,
The Rotund One
Thank you, Anna for your encouragement and kindness. And thank you "Sir Christopher" for your patience... for taking the time to help me "re-coalesce" as you described it.
ReplyDeleteI love this discussion... and while I'm not up to finding the words to describe my more recent experience of wholeness, I did pull out one of my favorite quotes by the physicist, Murray Gell-man:
"Today the network of relationships linking the human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so complex that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary degree. Someone should be studying the whole system, however crudely that has to be done, because no gluing together of partial studies of a complex nonlinear system can give a good idea of the behavior of the whole."
Life is more precious than I ever knew.
Love you all,
JJ
Rizzin says... so many words... so little said... the mind running in circles to understand itself.
ReplyDeleteWholeness is nothing more... nothing less than the terrifying realization... the ecstatic acceptance... the universe singing... showing... disappearing in you... until you realize that there are no boundaries... other than those we imagine... no it... no us... no them.
But why would one seek for such confusion... such a helpless state of being?
It is not the experience of oneness that matters... my brothers... my sisters... my friends... but what we do with it upon our return to the relative world of you... and me... and the tree... and the sky... and the"enemy."
Peace and Understanding to us all... Rizzin'
Ah, now this is what one must love about this gathering. While some of us are celebrating our renunion of past conferences and doing mental gymnastics, others are calling us to task and saying in so few, but elegant words, what we've been struggling to say for three days now.
ReplyDeleteRizzin, it is a pleasure to have you back in our midst, my friend. I think you may have grounded us in a deeper reality that brings up two questions for me:
1. How many of us have had a meaningful experience of oneness and/or wholeness?
2. If so, how has it impacted our lives (how are we being that is different -- what are we doing differently), if at all?
3. If not, (and I have difficulty imagining that at some point in life this could have totally escaped anyone), do you have an internal longing for such an experience?
Sincerely,
Ellio
There has been a wealth of great information shared in your comments -- so much so that I'm going to advance this conversation on to the next level in a new topic. Rather than comment on anything written here, please go to the new topic, "Complete Genius -- The Whole Truth."
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Christopher