After a long sabbatical, I've been pondering a bit. Probably a little too much actually. But I really found myself blessed by everyone who participated previously. You made me think and you challenged me to take action.
With that in mind, I'm asking myself, what is it I can do in this current state of global and economic affairs that will make a meaningful contribution. You see what haunts me, ever so slightly (and a lot when I'm dreaming) is that everything we discussed and ruminated about on this blog previously, has played out on the world scene now. It's almost eerie, if I allow it to be.
So what does this mean? That we were quasi-prophets? Or that all of our talk did nothing to head-off our current conditions? Or that our current state of affairs (whatever it may be) is never what life is really all about?
If that be the case, then what is life all about? For you?
I'll toss some ideas out -- vague ones like it's about love, and grace, and working to find and express our wholeness together. But those may just be concepts, unless we are living it out in this very moment.
Bottom line: If you're up for it, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Maybe it will create a spark that might ignite a fire, that might in turn set the world ablaze (or at least set our own minds ablaze) with something productive.
If it's helpful, scan through some of our previous blog conversations (the widget to the left of the page has the full index available for your convenience). Otherwise, just jump in from here and let your genius loose.
Sincerely,
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.
Hi Christopher!
ReplyDeleteIt's been a desperately long time since this blog was active, but I just got a ping that said you'd started things up again (you are a daring man, aren't you?)
Your question takes me back to the previous conversations we have all shared in this space and evokes a deep sense of longing because I realize that I've fallen out touch with the place in me which so readily responded to these types of questions before.
Love, grace, wholeness. How far we stray sometimes from these basic fundamentals of life together. I'm saddened, actually, as I write. I'm going to have to ponder these questions more before answering further.
But thank you, for posing such a simple yet profound query.
Warmly,
Anna
My goodness; the blog is back up! Hello Anna!
ReplyDeleteI am glad. I had come to rather enjoy our sparring about current issues......
On a different note, I am very happy today.As an import to America, I am holding my head high and breathing a huge sigh of relief. After making an unprecedented parental move and ordering my kids to stay home from school to watch the inaugural ceremonies in Washington this morning I am finding that my Scandinavian heart is beating a little bit easier, and I am officially proud of what was accomplished and messaged from the National Mall. My children may not yet realize the importance this morning’s activities hold, but they will. I trust someday they will.
As a daughter of a politician and self professed die-hard liberal, I surprised myself in all my unceremonious glory by getting all chocked up watching uniformed military men and women stand guard, streams of officials parade out through the doors and the new President’s beautiful family gather around him as he accepted his new duties with an obvious and very endearing sense of responsibility.
I tend to be pragmatic nearly to a fault. I tend toward cynical judgment in the face of change. I tend toward righteousness in my evaluation of opposing opinions. I had a chance this morning to accept humility, grace and reconciliation of my personal view of the future of politics in this nation. The invitation issued may have sounded a little bit like “Go ye out and be my disciples”, but I believe it may work out to be so much more than that. And I am grateful to be able to echo the benediction from the event and issue a resounding amen, amen, AMEN!!! to President Obama’s speech. I maybe naïve, or it is just that simple. Talking may just lead to preemptive action this time. And that, Chris, is when talking will do something to head off current conditions.
Hello friends:
ReplyDeleteI am still recovering from a tragic 2008. Talk about life changing, you know these insights into transformation are quite deadly, you start declaring possibility, and everything starts changing good and bad.
I look forward to healing my family, spending time with my kids and taking more time out to visit the Zen Big mind group in Salt Lake City.
We journeyed to California, my sister decided to have the wedding as a way of healing the family, although we would get word of my grandfathers passing on January 1st just as she was to leave on her honeymoon. But we are all strong, the last of the great possible tragedies are in the past.
Pictures:
http://www.monkeyview.net/id/2164/gallaghers_2008/index.vhtml
I believe that we have a new president who is neither a democrat or a republican, but a human being, who would very much like to make America great again, I pray that congress will not get in his way.
Looking forward to many more interesting conversations and I am sending out the intention of love and peace to bless all your lives.
Best,
Tom (Moki) Gallagher
May I echo your, "Amen," Anonymous and say how much I love Thomas G's comment that our new president is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but rather, a human being. Beautifully said.
ReplyDeleteHope springs in my heart as well, and I choose to see the occasion of our conversation starting up once more as a sign of the rising spirit that is welling up within the hearts of so many of the people I know and with whom I associate.
My fond wishes to all,
Anna
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI was pleased to see that Christopher has shaken the dust off the old file cabinet and am intrigued by the possibilities a renewed version of this discussion might hold in light of the profound shifts that have occurred in the collective sphere during our hiatus.
Like Anonymous, I found myself unwittingly picked up and carried along by the tide of recent events. I am grizzled and cynical and far from convinced that politicians of any stripe hold the solutions to anything, but I am beginning to believe that many more of us are struggling with the issues we were discussing in our last go round than perhaps we thought, and for at least the moment, there seems to an uncommon level of collective will pointing in the direction of something – ANYTHING- different. Perhaps it represents opportunity, perhaps it represents only one stage of a descent into chaos, and perhaps the one merely implies the other. Nonetheless, the thought of reengaging our conversation has been tickling in the back of my mind for some time, and the fact that it’s reemerged seems indicative of the fact that I’m not the only one who’s been feeling it. Perhaps we can contribute some small impetus to the greater project, if for no other reason than to give each other some insight into what the process of change looks like in our individual lives.
I look forward to what we might create together.
I agree that it's so nice to begin again.I take a deep breath and realize that I've missed this gathering place and the souls who frequent it.
ReplyDeleteI can totally relate to the feelings that are being described here about a new found hope. I realize that placing so much hope, perhaps, in our elected leadership can be sketchy, but it is so damned refreshing to have a leader that seems to be aware of the world around him and not stuck in some self-constructed world of xenophobia and hate.
I find myself fascinated with watching what is happening with the new administration each day because it is usually such a relief to see actions that while not always to my preference, seem sane, well thought out and reasonable.
I'm hopeful for the human race, and that may be naive. Nonetheless, I find that the love that resides in everyone's hearts that I meet is very powerful. If we can shut off the fear mongering enough to let love take hold, I envision a world that gradually lives up to its potential; that ends hunger, stabilizes the world economy; and puts and end to tyranny and terror by creating enough opportunity to where such measures no longer make sense.
Call me crazy, but that vision is my hope and prayer for the world.
Christopher
BKO:
ReplyDeleteGovernment may not be the best at results, but it’s our one hope for making sure regulation and greed are kept in place.
We can agree that government can be very wasteful in the results they get from tax dollars, some of the government employee's may not work as hard because they feel they have a secure job.
It’s clear that the free market has helped, but we trusted it so much, forgetting that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As we see from an 8 billion dollar increase in the national debt under President Bush,
Who pretended to be republican and conservative. Both parties clearly are not afraid of spending a lot of tax dollars with no accountability, the banks who got the 350 billion don’t even know where the money is, meanwhile, they are not selling foreclosed houses so the loss doesn’t get put on their books, my real estate friend tells me only 1 in 3 short sells actually gets approved.
I lost my house, I had multiple buyers at the so called short sell approval amount, but they would not sell my house, even after the mortgage insurance man said he would approve the short sell.
We can't trust either party, but Obama does seem to be interested in cleaning up government and putting some regulation in place to protect against too much greed.
Best,
Tom Gallagher
Greetings my fellow citizens. Anna has incessantly pestered me to the point of perturbation, so alas I have capitulated. And, I must confess that in so doing, I do find myself relishing the thought of jousting with this crowd of rowdy sentimentalists once again.
ReplyDeleteThat we were somewhat prophetic in our prognostications of current events should not be seen as an achievement of great merit. Anyone with a shred of intellect and an ounce of pattern recognition had to have the sense that we -- as a nation and across the globe -- were headed for the type of crash that all such drunken actions induce.
While I should politely feign sympathy for Thomas Gallagher and others who have found themselves in dire straits, we have only ourselves to thank for the circumstances which we now face. Casting blame is so fashionable, so au courant in our world today and yet, seriously my colleagues, does any good come from such blathering?
I wish I were one to regale in the pleasantries of a new administration, however, as optimistic as the populace may be; in spite of the hearty measure of genuine intelligence possessed by this inspiring new leader of the free world; and regardless of how many of the Illuminati brain trust he invites into his inner circle, there is one factor that no one really wants to acknowledge:
We have not yet come to terms with the basic cause of this collapse -- that which has entrenched itself so deeply into our collective thinking that to expose it would be to make a lie of the underlying structure of our entire "way of life."
Until we are willing to expose the Great Lie, my hopeful friends, we are almost certainly destined for miseries of which we have yet found the courage to anticipate.
A most pleasant day to you all,
Thomas W.
With your permission, I add a post-script to my previous entry:
ReplyDeleteThomas G. has dramatically under-stated the amount of national debt accumulated under the last Bush presidency. Upon his entry into the White House, the National Debt stood at 5.7 Trillion. Upon his departure it had reached over $10 Trillion.
Amidst today's news of tens of thousands of layoffs, across various industries and current forecasts that this trend will only worsen, one would be wise to smile optimistically, while battoning down the hatches and preparing for one hell of a storm.
Hopefully yours,
Thomas W.
Thomas W.
ReplyDeleteWithout pointing blame as Thomas W reminds us, because our past is not as important as our present desire to start a new.
But what is the lie you bring up?
That we spent too much, we took the credit they gave us, and spend it when we know we don’t have the money to pay the bill at the end of the month...Sure enough, if we chose to not take the credit, the system might have self corrected itself?
That we couldn’t afford the homes at the inflated prices and the terms the mortgage companies were giving us families who couldn’t afford these homes, was a greater reason to not buy a home.
But we all wanted a home, we all wanted to eat out once in awhile, and thus the market was only trying to support and continue with our collective greed.
The free markets might have self corrected it, if we didn’t bail them out, now it seems that they don’t have to self correct because they got the money with no strings attached. So they took the money, but didn’t use it to cover the cost of short sales, they wont sell the mortgage loans at a loss because that would hurt their books. So none of the money will fix the problem, and again, this year we will hear them asking for more money. But who in the end will sell the home at a loss, or will they just wait till they can get the full price, hoping the bubble inflates again? 70% of foreclosures are not being sold right now; one in three short sells is not approved according to friends in the real estate game.
Confused,
Tom Gallagher
Thomas G:
ReplyDeleteMore regulation wont help...
Check out the Community Reinvestment Act if you want to know more. This legislation (passed under Carter) was aimed at reducing discrimination. It wasn't enforced until Clinton, who had the specific, stated aim of increasing the percentage of people in this country who would be homeowners. Since homeowners were, in general, more responsible, more active, and more productive citizens, this would create a boom of wealth, responsibility, and productivity. So Clinton began to enforce the CRA (with the help of "community organizer" plaintiff's attorney's like one Barry H. Obama in Chicago). Banks had absolutely no choice in whether they would extend certain loans. They simply had to do it. These loans were loans that would not have been approved had banks applied more time-tested, financial-only metrics when evaluating their applications. Because the loans were riskier but the banks could not raise the cost of the loan to offset the risk, they termed these loans "sub-prime" because they knew the loans were a bad investment.
After the originating bank writes a mortgage, the secondary market steps in and buys it. This is where the real cost of financing is determined. If there is someone willing to buy a mortgage on the secondary market, then banks will make the mortgage, even if it seems like a bad idea. It becomes Someone Else's Problem. So the government (under the direction of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and against the repeated impassioned pleas of John McCain) instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two quasi-governmental agencies, to buy these loans on the secondary market.
As long as there was a willing buyer, there were plenty of willing borrowers (would-be homeowners) and willing lenders (banks). None of them bore the final responsibility for the loan. Nobody wanted to talk about the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bore this risk. And because they were both guaranteed by the US Treasury, we all bore the risk. For their trouble, these legislators got very favorable terms on their own home loans, saving them tens of thousands of dollars.
The intent of the CRA was to reduce discrimination. Instead, it created bankruptcy, insolvency, corruption, heartache, devastating loss, and recession. The answer the government calls for is "More Regulation!" because it is easy to point to the fact that corruption crept into the process. And this is true. With hindsight, we can see exactly where more regulation would have helped. But before the crisis, there was no hindsight. Regulation will never eliminate corruption. Bigger government means more money flowing through it, which inevitably means more corruption. The way to avoid corruption is to eliminate the opportunity for corruption, by reducing the amount of money in government. Of course government wants more money. Who doesn't? But this doesn't make them right.
What you call "rewrapping" is what happened when larger banks decided to "securitize" loans, i.e. creating official securities (bonds) out of hundreds or thousands of loans. These were also "regulated" by the SEC. And you are right--regulation is why they had to do this. Because banks had to extend more loans, they needed access to more money. The secondary mortgage market was no longer sufficient--even with the billions of our money put on the line by Fannie and Freddie. Banks needed to allow private investors to buy loans. So when "mortgage-backed securities" were introduced, with the blessing of the SEC, millions flocked to buy them, because home prices were skyrocketing, thanks to the CRA. Once again, these sub-prime loans were Someone Else's Problem. Banks who couldn't securitize their debt indulged in so-called "credit-default swaps," paying someone else to shoulder the risk of non-payment, much like insurance for their bad debt.
The problem is, while housing prices had soared, home values had not. When people realized the value of their home was less that what they owed, they stopped paying. This discrepancy would not have existed without regulation. When defaults happened in large enough numbers, any institution who sold a credit-default swap had to take on more defaults than they were able. This led to the bailout of Bear Stearns. More and more defaults, more and more problems. Fannie and Freddie had to run to Uncle Sam for the first time in their 60-plus year history. All of the mortgage-backed securities were in the toilet. Merril Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, all were hit extremely hard. All because of government regulation.
You say, more regulation would have avoided this problem. In a way, you are right. IF we had known EXACTLY what to regulate and how, we could have avoided the specific problems that caused the house of cards to collapse. But the real problem wasn't the gust of wind, it was the instability of the house in the first place. Calling for more regulation now is like continuing to douse your home in gasoline, and then starting a committee to ban matches. It's easy to blame someone for striking a spark when the whole thing goes up in flames. But the real problem was never too little regulation. The government created a market condition where collapse was inevitable, and then blamed the specific agents of the impetus rather than their own role in creating those conditions. And did we really expect them to act any different?
You want government to force banks to allow short sales. But the role of government should not be to dictate to banks how they allocate their money. I know it is a topic that hits close to home for you right now (literally and figuratively), but we had good intentions with the CRA and look where that got us. Government trying to help is, quite simply, a recipe for disaster.
The antidote to greed is not regulation. Regulation and greed go HAND IN HAND. The antidote for greed is fear. Fear of losing money restrains people from always acting on their greed. And that fear is eliminated when government shoulders the risk through regulation.
The way out of this mess is to lower taxes, lower spending, and lower regulation. When people figure out that government will stop acting in unpredictable ways to steal their money, they will start spending and loaning again. Anything else is simply starting again on the next bubble.
It appears we now have more than one writer writing as "Anonymous" which makes me, in order to keep us all separate, going to start writing under my actual name. Hello all. I am Anita. :-)
ReplyDeleteWelcome, Anita (our former Anonymous)! I had actually scratched my head about the previous Anonymous entry. I was unaware that you were as up-to-date on the Community Reinvestment Act (though it wouldn't have been truly surprising).
ReplyDeleteAnd, welcome to the new Anonymous. Very informative entry. I'll have to digest it fully and then hope to provide a response.
All the best,
Christopher
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteFrom the wiki link:
approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".
Barr, Michael. "Prepared Testimony of Michael S. Barr" (PDF). United States House Committee on Financial Services.
Further:
According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis
Thomas G:
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly some controversy in tying the CRA to the 2008 financial crisis. But to dispute the link on the argument that there are "independent" mortgage companies is simply specious. There is no mortgage company doing business in the US that is not subject to lawsuit or the threat of lawsuit under the CRA. Whether the agencies charged with enforcing the CRA played an active role in supervising these so-called independent companies is irrelevant. The CRA mandated the policy, and those that violated it paid heavily in civil court if not in official fines.
And you're right: smaller banks tend to have closer ties to their customers, making them more careful with their money. So even their subprime loans are better risks than a similar loan made by Chase or Countrywide. In fact, smaller banks across the country are enjoying relatively good financial health, while their larger institutional brothers need bailouts.
Am I the only one who thinks loaning only 25% of your money to people who can't pay it back is still stupid? Not as stupid as 100%, but it's still not the government's business to tell banks which risky investments to make.
It's not the independent mortgage companies who care about the risk. Like I said before, if they can resell the loan, they don't care if it's a bad loan. Mortgage companies are all about a quick buck whether it serves their clients or not. So when government tells the secondary market it has to buy a certain percentage of subprime loans, you better believe there are plenty of mortgage companies willing to make those loans. Of course there are: there are many times more unqualified borrowers than qualified ones, and if unqualified borrowers can be brought into the market, it greatly increases the demand for mortgages. What is a mortgage company to do when there are people who want to borrow money, and there are people willing to loan it to them? They connect the two, of course. Just because they "make" the loans doesn't mean they actually intended to service it. They have a rotating balance they use for each mortgage until they can resell it on the secondary market. The secondary buyer is the real lender, since if a broker can't sell the loan, they will never fund it. And the secondary mortgage market was heavily regulated under the CRA.
Once the CRA became industry standard, enforcement was no longer even necessary. Government had told banks to throw their standards out the window, and make more loans, and they were assured that we the people would assume the risk. Banks were only too happy to do so. Why would they refuse? Once most banks were making subprime loans, the rest were forced to do so or be unable to compete. The exceptions were small, regional banks and credit unions, who still lost millions on CRA-mandated bad loans, but were able to mitigate the worst of the losses because they had been more careful.
There is no such thing as a "CRA" loan. Whether the CRA was a criterion or not in the extending of a loan is not recorded in the loan when it is passed to the secondary market. And with regard to your quote by Ms. Yellen: the Federal Reserve has a vested interest in refuting the ties between the financial crisis and the CRA, because the banks of the Fed are the secondary market now that Fannie and Freddie are in such straits, and the Fed is still subject to the CRA.
Once again, the intent (and the intentions are good) of all of this regulation is to help more people have more money. But real money (by which I mean purchasing power) cannot be created by government, it can only be stolen and spread around. And when they do it, some of it inevitably disappears along the way. Printing money, borrowing money, raising taxes, they are all exactly the same thing: taking wealth from those with the ability to create it and spreading it around. But wealth gets spread around anyway. People don't create wealth to bury it, they create it to spend or invest it. The presumption of politicians is that because the people in government are so smart, they know better than we do how to spend our money to help the country. It comes down to a choice of what you believe. I choose to believe I'm a better judge of how to spend my money than is Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Bernanke, Paulson, or even Obama. You may choose to believe otherwise. But as long as most people share your belief, our country's economic state will continue to be manipulated, not by those who produce goods, services, and wealth, but by those who produce policy and regulation. I don't like where it's gotten us so far.
Thanks for the additional info, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through your previous post and then add to it the additional information you've provided, it's easy to see how the Law of Unintended Consequences plays out. I think that if we begin with the premise that many, if not most people, are well intended in their actions (whether it be the creation of laws or how we act in our lives), it may also be true that it only takes a small percentage of people -- who either want to manipulate or game the system, or have let personal greed outweigh any sense of collective well being they might have -- to derail the best of intentions.
Ultimately, responsibility (both personal and collective) seems to be one foundational principle that can create clarity, eliminate our tendency to blame (which usually leaves us feeling justified or "right", but doesn't lead to any productive learning), and help us all learn from what went wrong.
We're all in this together, it certainly seems. And the sooner we get over our need to point the finger at each other and start actually working together to combine our approaches, think through them carefully, and be willing to question where there are holes in our own plans, the sooner we'll start to find more holistic, long term solutions that actually work for the overall betterment of individuals and the whole.
Getting over ourselves enough to do that, however, may be a whole other matter.
~ Christopher
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI dont know enough about CRA rules to discuss which it applies to.
It may have been a trend, since it was ok for other groups to do subprime loans, that everyone just followed suit.
It's really sad to think that a good intention like the CRA caused the whole system to collapse.
The trickle down economics never happened under the republicans, yet its this same line of thinking that continues.
Regulation causes harm, no regulation causes harm. What is the solution.
Maybe someone else in this group can discuss these fine points.
If government is the problem, and free markets are suppose to help us, I am feeling like their is no solution, yet everything works out in the end.
Lost,
Thomas G
Ladies and Gentlemen, please, let's not pretend that we have the corner on wisdom and intelligence. You should know that such a designation only applies to me (I jest, perhaps).
ReplyDeleteTo our new Anonymous friend, you are correct in that a law -- and, in actuality and entire philosophy, intended to create more access to housing for the lower economic strata -- created mandates that left room for open-ended abuse of the very program it created by failing to require the usual vetting and reasonable safeguards that would normally apply to the business of lending money. (And no, my fair chap or lass -- as the case may be -- you are not alone in being stupefied by the utterly moronic behavior of our lending institutions. (What were they thinking? Ah yes, they were not thinking at all!)
It is also critical for us to recognize, however, that it was not only the banks and lenders themselves, who were eager to expand their business, but also those who packaged and sold and re-sold the loans, combined with the lack of regulations regarding such investments, that enabled this colossal menagerie of greed and stupidity, created at the initial level to expand perniciously to multiple levels and beyond.
Furthermore, in answer to young, Thomas G., there is something else much more fundamental at play in this entire drama that unfolds before us. At the heart of it is our collective belief in the Great Lie, which itself is multifold and thus snares us from every angle:
A. We believe we have the collective wisdom and intelligence sufficient to manage the complexities of a global economy.
The truth? We don't. Instead, we're like children trying to control a fire we set that has now grown too big for us to manage. Our various corrective actions, while appearing to have positive effects, are most often the product of a collision of factors, many of which are by mere chance. We no more know how to control the economy than we understand the complexities of global warming. The thought that such wisdom is held tightly by one party or the other borders on lunacy.
B. People are interested in the common good.
The truth? We're not. In spite of how righteously we may proclaim ourselves to be wise and beneficent, our goodness almost unfailingly turns rabid when another dares to have an opinion less righteous or in opposition to our own. When someone does, by mere freak of nature, appear on the horizon in possession of a genuine care and concern for the huddled masses and the rich alike -- we kill them, as we must. They are an anathema to our deeper desires and plans. Shocked? Don’t be. History is my witness.
Thus, my friends, while we may all sit back and play the role of arm-chair quarter backs, the deeper truth is that we pretend to know better, because to face the dire realities of the truth, would cause too great a discomfort and that is something that is highly unacceptable in this modern world in which we live.
C. Rugged individualism and a free market economy will, if left unfettered, prove to be the ultimate system that solves our greater problems.
The truth? The belief in this portion of the Great Lie is perhaps only second in fervor to a population’s belief in their god and yet -- I am sorry to dash your hopes -- it is pure hogwash. Why? We do not have a free market economy and never have had because it is constantly being manipulated by individuals or groups of individuals who are gaming the very system they claim to hold in such reverence. And this aspect, my friends, leads us back to points A and B. We actually have no real idea of what we are doing and what will be the undulating effects of our misguided or “inspired” actions. What’s more -- we don’t really care as long as we benefit from it now or perceive we will benefit from it in the future.
D. We are growing in wisdom and are far more enlightened than those of past ages.
The truth? We have learned little, if anything, about our own avarice and the deeper truth of our nature. We will destroy each other, ourselves, and our very habitat before we are willing to let go of our closely held beliefs. For all of our intelligence, we are in truth mere mental midgets (and please, before you decry my lack of political correctness for using such a term -- use the dictionary and learn what the term actually means).
There now, I have said my piece. Thrash against it all you like. It shall not change one iota of the truth of which I have here spoken.
A most pleasant day to you all,
Thomas W.
Really, Thomas W. Must you be such a curmudgeon?
ReplyDeleteThat we as a species have proven that we have an ample share of greed, malevolence and poor judgment is born out by history, yes. But so too are the countless acts of kindness, genuine care, and selflessness carried out by a very large number of human beings. That such acts do not make the 5’o clock news is convenient for those who support your views. Nonetheless, let's not pretend that the world the news media portrays is even a vague representation of reality, much less our real values.
To pretend that we are doomed to the limitations of our worst characteristics is specious at best and leaves us with a sense of fatalistic permission, as if nothing we do matters.
The deeper truth, for me and many others as well, is that while external circumstances (such as the economy) may impact us greatly, we still have a choice to live our lives focused on those aspects that have greater meaning and are not defined by politics, religion, or the economy.
It is in those relationships that I put my energy and grow as a human being. I believe if you look closely, it may also be more true for you than you would like to publicly admit.
For your consideration,
Anna
Thomas W., you and I have crossed swords a bit in the past (rather enjoyably, I might add), but in response to your latest post, I couldn't be more in agreement with you.
ReplyDeleteWe can get as wonky as we want to and debate the ins and outs of various policies until the cows come home. But if we take that road, we'll never even get near the heart of the actual creature. Debating the jots and tittles of policy does nothing but divert us from, as you say, the really uncomfortable truths of our own behavior and our long neglect of basics far more fundamental than capital flows. It's very easy to blame the CRA or find some other scapegoat, but the fact is, we ALL allowed this to happen. Whether by action or non-action, we signed onto the program, took the pill, and went to sleep. Now, as we are being forced to wake up from the lovely dream we've been having for the last few decades, we're bitching about the hangover like whiny five year olds. I am sorry to appear short, but I don't believe there's anything to be found in deconstructing the policy missteps of past administrations, particularly in light of the disaster we're just emerging from. If we have a chance in hell of changing anything, it'll start at my house, and your house and right in front of our noses. face to face with each other, not in the halls of distant power. We're blaming the fat boys for running away with the dinner, because that's easier than looking at the fact that we're the ones who've been feeding them all along.
My question to all of you is:
What are YOU doing, in your own life, to change THAT??????
BKO and passionate family:
ReplyDeleteToday, I am putting my past behind me.
Today, I am reminded of my father who would have shared his birthday with us.
My ex wife is signing the divorce papers, I am taking on all the marital debt.
My grandfather always told me that work doesn't make money, only money makes money. It would turn out that he left enough to free us of all our marital debt. He was a product of the great depression, the last one, not this year.
They both were amazing men, I had such a great life because of these two fathers that have left my life.
http://abbagallagher.blogspot.com
We look forward with hope to the future because you gave us the world.
Best,
Tom G
BKO, I appreciate your wise challenge. Your question left me in a state of rumination throughout the evening. Though not ready to post a response, I wanted to acknowledge your invitation.
ReplyDeleteTo Thomas G. -- I would like to congratulate you on your steadfastness. While feeling genuine empathy for all that you have been through this last year, I believe it will be your indomitable spirit that will see you through. Kudos!
Warmly,
Anna
Anna:
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your kind words.
I have to admit that while I thought I was well adjusted, yesterdays notice of his birthday did send me into tears of emotion that made me leave work early.
I spent the day with my mom, she lost her father two years ago today. Too many dads to lose in such a short time.
But as you say, we remain steadfast because it always gets a little bit better tomorrow.
I remember flying on a plane with a man who was a karate champion returning from Japan. We shared so much, but the quote he left me with gets me through this life.
He said...
"Better today then yesterday, better tomorrow then today."
My mentor Werner Erhard gave me the next gift that allowed me to create my own future meaning when he said....
"Obviously the truth is what's so. Not so obviously, its also so what!"
With this I leave you all with warm wishes and blessing for a better 2009.
Best,
Tom Gallagher
annoymous:
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for bringing this subject up again, but its important that the facts be represented.
I research the CRA regulation and there is no fine or court prosecution under the regulation. It only gives mortgage companies a compliance rating or not.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/10/community_reinv.html
http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/community-reinvestment-act
There is no way you can prove that this regulation caused the economic meltdown.
This is more of the same old lie, saying the free markets and no regulation is what self corrects everything.
Trying to see all sides,
Tom
Thomas G
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting information. I will definitely read more about it. It's still not enough to convince me, but it does make me want to reexamine. The reasons are the following:
1) The author of the first article attempts to put blaming the CRA on a par with blaming Fannie and Freddie, and calls both ideas ridiculous. He doesn't give any reasons to exonerate Fannie and Freddie, we are just supposed to take it on his word.
2) Fannie and Freddie most assuredly did contribute to the crisis. To understand why, you have to realize that bankers judge any investment, including a loan, not only by its return but by its risk. Fannie and Freddie, with their tacit backing of the federal treasury behind them, only appeared to be the same as other lenders. In fact, they had substantially lower risk because of this guarantee. The difference between actual and perceived risk was not lost on savvy primary lenders who packaged risky loans specifically designed for Fannie and Freddie to snatch up. Fannie and Freddie basically used their unfair business position (uniquely guaranteed by the treasury) to punish their competitors for using prudent business practices. Of course, this has nothing to do with the CRA (I never said it was the only contributing cause of the current crisis) but it does mean holding Fannie and Freddie guiltless is far from obvious. In fact, to me, it seems far from logical.
3) The author of this post doesn't seem to grasp that the secondary market is the market most influential in determining policy. I may be wrong about the extent of the CRA's impact (I obviously didn't run those studies myself) but if he's just looking at how the CRA was enforced on primary lenders (which seems to be the case) he's missing most of the picture.
I am impressed by the effort you've put into this. I do agree wholeheartedly with one thing in the article which would appear to prove your point about regulation, but in fact I believe it shows the opposite: the SEC's decisions regarding credit default swaps, and securitizing of mortgage debt. That was also a major cause of the crisis. But, why does it immediately follow that more regulation would have been better? Credit default swaps have been around a long time, and only recently did they become such a large problem. If you want me to go into why, I can, but the point is regulation across the board (though not specifically for these swaps) has been increasing over time. There is no time they were more regulated than just before the crisis. So how can less regulation be the problem? As for the securitizing of mortgage debt, I happen to agree that particular investment vehicle could have used some intelligent regulation.
The main point is this: regulation harms consumers in several ways. First, by making doing business more expensive. Consumers can never escape paying their share of this, even if, by the time it shows up in the cost of investments, it isn't tied to government anymore. Second, when people feel as though an industry is regulated, they relax their guard. It used to be, before you put your money in a bank, you researched that bank. Reputation was important, as was knowing the bank's overall risk tolerance and track record. Today, after government regulation, not one person in ten thousand could tell you what their bank invests in other than home mortgages. We let down our guard, expecting the government to prevent all greed and corruption, which it can never do. Finally, regulation makes enemies out of business and government.
Since the 1950's, what was once a manufacturing powerhouse, the world's largest exporter, the richest nation on earth, and the holder of the world's reserve currency has become the world's largest importer, a manufacturing wasteland, the greatest debtor on earth, and the dollar's status as the reserve currency of the world is being thrown into doubt. During the same period, the amount of regulation on business has been multiplied many hundreds of times.
If the banking industry had fewer regulations on it, no one would have ever been able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes long enough to put our entire banking system in jeopardy. Free markets simply don't tolerate such behavior. Only bureaucrats and politicians are capable of destroying something healthy so swiftly and so utterly.
Annyomous:
ReplyDeleteI like your main point, if we had hindsight, and knew what greed would occur, then we could make regulation that works.
Thomas W made a great point too, that the big lie is that free markets and no regulation can work, but in fact, we have never had this because both parties take advantage of no regulations or regulations.
So it would seem that CRA is not the only cause, but it was part of the cause.
Fannie and Freddie are huge bloated government agencies that did have a major affect on this crisis.
I still believe that the secondary market, needs some oversight, more transparency, because it has too great of a possibility to be taken advantage of.
Best,
Tom
Tom Gallagher:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that oversight can be a good thing. The problem is, the minute someone is put in charge, the opportunity for corruption is created (who watches the watchers?). Putting government in charge is almost never a good idea IMHO. The one thing government would be good at is mandating and enforcing public transparency, e.g. making companies submit to regular 3rd party audits and releasing the information. Of course, with public companies, this is already the case, and they still hide their practices. So I don't know the answer. What I do know is that we've been trying more and more regulation for 60 years now and it doesn't seem to be working. It is cheaper to make steel here, ship the steel to Korea, make a car there, then ship it back, than just produce the car here in the first place. That should tell us something.
If markets, rather than government, are in charge of oversight, then greed can counter greed--the watchers have their own interests to protect and are much more likely to be vigilant. There is room for government to be involved in making sure everything is above board, but government controlling money just means that eventually someone on a 40,000 salary will be making billion dollar decisions. You can't tell me that isn't a situation that guarantees corruption. An additional benefit of getting government out of the regulation business is that we get rid of the false sense of security bestowed by having big brother in charge.
Thomas W., a little bird tells me that you are back from Washington. I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts regarding this whole topic of regulation. It seems that we are on the verge, as a country, of letting our ideological pride get in the way of finding a solution together. Is my concern unfounded?
ReplyDeleteAnna
Alas, dear Anna, your fears are not the least bit unfounded. Nor am I at home, but rather attempting to reason with people whose only ethos stems from their narrow ideologies, their insatiable egos, or both.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the days that lie before us will tell us much as to whether we as a nation, and as human beings, have miraculously grown beyond the limits of our own pride; or whether instead we are merely cave dwellers wearing suits and skirts (This analogy will most certainly resonate with the younger Thomas, who has previously regaled in the philosophy of his own guru, Herr Erhard, who also espoused this view. Begrudgingly as it may be, I now find myself agreeing with dear Werner on this one fine point.)
So before trudging back to conversations soaked in hopeless maneuvering, I pose this question to our elite group: What shall ye do, my friends, when the sky falls and your world crumbles beneath your feet? This, I dare say, is a conversation now worth having.
Thomas W., your ultimate question sounds a lot like the one BKO asked. I've been giving the question a lot of thought (it's kind of an ongoing koan for me) and I keep coming back to the same place.
ReplyDeleteThere appear to be two forces at play here:
1. A belief/fear that compliance with the existing system of doing things must be maintained (and in so doing our own health, well-being, relationships, integrity, etc., comes second);
or
2. A belief/hope that our health/well-being, relationships, and integrity come first and everything else second.
After reading such books (that keep finding their way to me) as "The Paradigm Conspiracy" (wondering if you ever read it, Thomas W.), "The Anatomy of Peace," "The Heart Math Solution," and, most recently, "The Shack" -- it appears that what we are experiencing globally and as a nation are the consequences of having given priority to the first category (maintain the system at all costs).
What can I do now?
Focus each day on what I can do to nurture my well-being, relationships, integrity, etc., while working within the system to provide opportunities for people to embrace a healthier, long-term, sustainable approach to life.
Ultimately, as I experience it anyway, life is a choice between love or fear (which begets greed, avarice, malice, and other forms of scarcity).
The challenges we may face, might be great -- greater than any my generation has yet faced. But we know where fear has led us (right to this very moment in time). It's time, therefore, to give love a chance.
Sound corny? If so, that may be because we don't even remotely understand the power of love.
Christopher
Following what Christopher is saying, I thought I would share a gem of an article I found.
ReplyDeleteMy Guru Werner Erhard started the hunger project (Self Expression and Leadership Course), one of its early particpants wrote an article of hope given our current situation.
The Opportunity Within the Current Financial Crisis by LandMark Grad
Inspirtational
letters from Lynne
We now have the opportunity to live the most meaningful lives any generation of humankind has ever lived. The halls of power have managed thus far to keep the climate change crisis at bay, the species extinction crisis at arms’ length, and the social justice crisis as an afterthought. Now we can see that the financial crisis is dramatically different. It is lodged in the hearts and minds of citizens, and is in the face of leaders in all sectors of society. The opportunity in this global economic crisis is that it’s forcing us to rethink our relationship to money and life, and to confront not only the financial crisis, but also all other crises which stem from the same root —
Scarcity. How can you use this financial crisis/opportunity as an impetus to live the most meaningful life of any generation?
http://www.soulofmoney.org/
My, this is truly an interesting group. Being invited by Anna to participate in an "important discussion" was something I was not about to pass up. And, judging from the past topics you have discussed together, I find myself a bit flummoxed at the moment, but will offer more than a few words, if you will indulge me, to slip into the current that I see emerging.
ReplyDeleteThere has been, as I am sure is not lost on any of you, a constant theme running through your discussions.
One of a yearning for holism, one might say; with overtones of what one could be tempted to call idealism (and yet I think that would be grandly oversimplifying the more noble aspects of the human soul that some of you have called upon).
There is also a constant, and wonderfully balanced contribution of pragmatism, secular wit, and a belief in the purpose and grandeur of our currently waning system.
As I have poured through your commentary, I found myself understanding more clearly why our congressional leaders are currently struggling. There are two very different ideologies at play in our nation today(and perhaps the world, as well).
What might I offer to this perplexing round of conversation? Maybe nothing at all -- and that is an important consideration for me to undertake. But, perhaps more challenging still, is a stirring within my own being that tells me that such conversations are, in and of themselves, important -- valuable.
Why? Because no conversation lives in isolation. As I examine your past discussions, it is obvious that you included, perhaps enticed, a number of varied people into a valuable repartee' regarding topics that impact us all.
And so, I leave you with this thought for now:
If love is truly the answer, as the host of this conversation implies in his initial entry, then just what is this love of which he speaks? He also draws upon words such as grace and wholeness. Powerful concepts are these, especially if lived, not merely spoken.
Do we (or may it be better said, you and I) have the courage, personally, to live this love of which he dreams? And if we did, what sacrifices would it call upon us to embrace; what new paradigms would it crack open for us to explore?
For love is not merely a gentle emotion nor a narcotic explosion of chemistry, but the refining fire that turns our craving egos into pure power -- the power, some seem to whisper, that could change our world.
Sincerely,
Rachel
P.S. While we are all influenced by our mentors, may I suggest what others have also invited in your past discussions -- that we share our own thoughts for a moment -- leaving in our treasure chest for now, the cherished words of others we consider wise. For I am convinced that there is wisdom sufficient within the depths of each of our own beings to answer the questions which have been here posed. So let us plumb the depths, shall we? Such an exercise, could do a soul much good.
Rachel, welcome!
ReplyDeletePlease excuse the difficulty you had with posting your first contribution to our conversation. It usually goes much more smoothly.
You've offered some great thoughts for us to soak on and I look forward to our responses.
Thank you,
Christopher
Being Love
ReplyDeleteI went out on a lonely night, my ex wife upset about the clothes I sent back that were dirty as she talks to me on the cell phone.
I got a pizza, a local restaurant that does it NY style, and this young lady who took my order had the most loving smile. I looked away, she is too young for a 40 yr old like me, but the smile draws me in.
I remember Werner and my dad repeating his words, "If you want to be interesting you have to be interested."
What was this smile of love, and young lady who had no conversation of insecurity, confident and very interested in people? Why wasn’t I interested and what happened along the way that I lost that interest. I know I am nice, I smile a lot, and I help people. But it made me think about my love of self and life. Some spark that as a youth I felt might be missing or need to be created as a way of being in my life.
I am love - although it sounds corny, and doesn’t seem to fit in a world projected outward.
Werner’s words again resonate, "you don’t have to go looking for love when it is where you come from."
Christopher, the coach and word smith guides us to wake up in this blog posting and be the love we want to see in the world.
First as others have said in so many blog postings, what are you doing in your life that will cause a ripple through our collective consciousness?
I declare the possibility for my self and the world to pay down our debt, not use credit unless it’s an emergency or investment, and begin to save for our future.
We live in a world of infinite possibility, but with all our money earned from jobs and investments going to pay for debt, there is too much past getting in the way of our greatest present possible futures.
One step at a time to be debt free
Tom Gallagher
Rachel, thank you for joining us.
ReplyDeleteYou've always had a such a way with words. And I love what you've written in regard to whether or not love can change the world. That happens to be a core question of mine, as I'm sure you know.
Oddly, however, I found myself distracted by your post script. Why are you seemingly so preoccupied with whether one chooses to quote the words of a person that has inspired them? After all, do any of us truly have an original thought -- one that is fully our own?
Don't mean to become distracted, but it seemed so out of character with the rest of your message.
Respectfully,
Anna
To our hopelessly idealistic host, yes, I did read the well-written treatise on power and corruption, aptly titled, "The Paradigm Conspiracy." Kind thanks to all who recommended it with the fervor of a religious zealot.
ReplyDeleteThe author exposes with clarity and deft the underlying strategy applied by the vast majority, if not all, political, religious and corporate leaders throughout the ages. And, brilliantly, I might add, pointed the mirror right back to each of us to remind us that we are anything but innocents in this conspiratorial process. Rather, we are guilty of our own addiction to power, greed, manipulation, and control. Excellent reading, I shall admit, especially for those who have held some misguided notion that the world operated otherwise.
May I say, at the risk of being my historically impudent self, that your idle fantasy that we as humans may at some point come to operate out of a fantastically and deeply embedded love seed, baffles me. You seem to be much brighter than such a longing would indicate. Have you not read your world history at all, my good man? Humanity, as a whole, is far more corrupt than you seem willing to envision.
At best, I believe, we navigate loosely stitched treaties of compromise (or better said, collusion) that allow us to have what we want, without nearly surrendering anything of real consequence (and certainly without giving any meaningful consideration to the impact our narcissism has on others).
Like all healthy skeptics, however, I must confess that underlying my skepticism and cynical posturing is an anger that results from some childish part of me that wishes that the world were not so.
But alas it is, and so I pose my question again: Knowing these truths to be self-evident, what shall one do?
Thomas W.
Anna, my dear, you know me. I'm the one who wants to peer deeply into people's minds and hearts. I simply find that when we quote the words of another it tells us little about how, if at all, such words truly apply to the life of the one who relies on the quote rather than the words that spring from their own soul.
ReplyDeleteIf my comments were in some way in appropriate, however, I do apologize. I suppose, as with any community, one has to feel their way at times in order to learn the unwritten rules.
Nonetheless, judging from the comments of your friend, Thomas W., it appears that my offense was minor compared to his often blistering remarks. To that point, I would challenge Sir Thomas with a question in return.
What if you are wrong, dear man? What if love does possess the power to change the world for good? What if it is merely our sad excuses and petulant stories that prevents us from living a life more idyllic?
History is full of such moments as well, but they are seldom recorded or are relegated to the stuff of legends and myths -- for if such stories were seen as plausible, this startling truth would fly in the face of the very conspiracy of which you speak. You spoke of the Great Lie -- I challenge you. I say that the greatest lie of all is the supposed "truth" you so cynically elucidated.
What if this were possible? It is the question asked by myriad creative souls over the eons -- the question that has led to many a breakthrough.
Perhaps this is our time to find out -- time to step out of the dilapidated model of our past and leap with abandon into one much saner and more compassionate. For if the world you envision is all that is left for us, what have we to lose?
Thomas W., you crack me up. Behind every person's idealism, is a dose of denial, I heard it said once. And that's likely true. Still, my "quest" for love is not based so much on idealism as it is the only viable option that seems left at this point in our human journey.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel (and by the way Rachel, the only "rules" are that we really listen to each other and that we not take personal pot-shots at one another -- so you can make a request if you like -- though not everyone will necessarily agree with you). But to my point, I think we're afraid to take the challenge of living out of love, because it requires more of us than we think we can pay.
For me, tonight, I feel a bit convicted in my own heart because my heart's been at war this week -- largely with myself over past "mistakes." The stress of life helped bring it to the surface and my initial release was directed at an extended family member who reminded me, perhaps unfortunately for them, of some of my past mis-steps. The result -- I unloaded on them. Whether or not they "deserved" it is really a moot point. Because my words were actually directed at me, not them. They were merely the convenient target for my release.
Life, it seems, is most certainly full of contradictions, perplexities, and unexpected twists and turns. Part of living out of love, however, also requires forgiveness -- of others, and maybe even more difficult, of ourselves -- especially at those times when we feel like we least deserve it.
But since every step requires faith, I'm placing my bet on the power of love as the foundational underpinning that can guide us to more holistic, healing solutions than we've yet found. And, if we are most fortunate, committing to such a path may just bless us with a peaceful heart and world.
Christopher
Greetings fellow geniuses!
ReplyDeleteThis morning I was mentioning to a colleague of mine how much I'd enjoyed our conversations of the past. We came to this website so I could show her one of our past threads only to find out, with much delight, that the conversation has resumed. And not a day too soon, might I add.
As I listen to my clients and work to assist them in coming to grips with the harsh realities we now face, I need a place where I can co-mingle with peers who don't need my advice.
The topic of love vs. fear (or love and fear) are certainly most relevant to our circumstances today. I need not educate this crowd on how brain function is impacted by stress and fear (and the world has evidenced these findings profoundly over the last eight years).
When under stress, all of the addictive tendencies upon which we've elaborated in the past, are only heightened as we begin to make decisions based on limbic-brain thinking, as opposed to whole-brain thinking.
While it is no surprise that Thomas W., our resident skeptic, would find no value in "the power of love," research would indicate otherwise. Christopher mentioned the studies detailed in "The Heart Math Solution." This is just one of many on-going studies into the beneficial effects of accessing or generating (depending upon your orientation) feelings of love.
While focusing on notions of romantic love tends to stimulate more right-brained activity, focusing on or generating feelings of "higher" love and well-being for self and others, tends to generate more balanced whole-brained activity. In addition, the calmness generated by such a practice tends to allow those observed to make more rational, well thought out decisions that more fully take into account short and long term outcomes.
Thus, Sir Thomas, turning up your nose at the power of love may prove to make you less effective than you otherwise might be.
Wonderful to be with you all again,
Dot P.
Here is a commentary about hope, fear and love that seemed to fit the direction of this conversation.
ReplyDeleteTRANS-cendence
Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them.”
Why is it then that we wake up day after and think the same thoughts and feel the same feelings and do the same things that we did the day before, yet somehow expect the results to be different?
It has become very clear that the models that we have been working with, as individuals and as a society – hell, as a planet – are not working particularly well. But we seem to be so busy blaming each other – the oil companies, Dubya, our parents, whoever – that we expend all of our energies pointing out what’s wrong, rather than opening to new models, new levels of addressing our problems.
It’s not like we don’t know what we’re doing. Sure, there is a significant percentage of the population that, due to lack of education and opportunity, or just plain old fear, remains stranded in the mire of the status quo, but we cannot fall back on that default position any longer. It’s an excuse, plain and simple, and nothing more.
Too many people on this planet are now conscious to claim ignorance any longer.
We are in a period of cultural awareness unparalleled in modern times. Even science, via theoretical quantum physics, is now telling us that what we choose, how we think and what we look for determines what we experience in life.
We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them.
The challenge to this point has been lack of models for implementing a different level of thinking. Religion has tried, and some have actually presented viable tools with which to begin. But religion has accumulated so much baggage along the way – or more accurately, our perception of religion has accumulated the baggage – that many have closed to the door to that area of exploration. Worshiping instead The God of Materialism, we have opted to confine our experience of life to what we can see and touch and accumulate. We have become a nation of Stuff Worshipers. But hey, that’s the model we had to work with, the American Dream; the house, the cars, 2.2 kids, the dog and the picket fence.
Let me ask you this; How well is that working for you?
Here’s what happened; the American dream picked up it’s own baggage along the way, and has now become so cumbersome as to be archaic. The model doesn’t work anymore.
Madison Avenue has convinced us that we must have stuff to be happy. It doesn’t even matter what kind of stuff any more. Almost any stuff will do. But in the process we have become so focused on materialism that we have seriously depleted the resources of the planet. Indeed, in our own shortsightedness we have sickened our own environment to the point where there are ecosystems on this planet that cannot even sustain life.
We have confused success with acquisition, joy with how much we spend in the pursuit of it, awe with dominance and oppression, even love we have confused with over-dependence, power, control, ownership. We have become isolated from each other. We have picked up quite a load of our own baggage along the way.
So how then do we begin to change it? I mean really change it, how do we jump the tracks and re-define our models, how do we let go of what is no longer working and begin to nourish and nurture better models to create a world that works for everyone?
Perhaps an even better question is not how, but rather, do we have the courage to do it. Are we really, honestly willing to begin to step out of our own self-serving little worlds into a place of bigger awareness?
Honestly I’m not convinced we’re ready to do that yet. Even those of us who profess to be conscious and progressive and open at the top still hang on to our separation from the whole of humanity. Why? Because it still serves us. Why, really?
Erica Jong hit the nail n the head some years ago when she said, “Take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame.”
The problem is, we still need someone to blame. That is the root of the problem here, individually, societally, and globally. We need someone to blame, because if we let go of that, we would have to truly step into a place of responsibility for our own actions, our own thoughts, our own experience of life, our own planet. And for all of our talk and bluster, I don’t know that we have yet reached a point of maturity where we are truly ready and willing to take responsibility for ourselves.
We could though, if we really, really wanted to. We have “new” models emerging, and ancient ones re-emerging that we could apply right now, today, that would radically change our world in a very short period of time. And there is something within us, individually and collectively, that is starting to re-awaken to this truth.
Movies like What the Bleep Do We Know and The Secret are bringing into the mainstream a new level of thinking with which we can transcend our problems. Every single one of them.
Science is now reinforcing what may of us have known since our species first stood upright; that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being. This means, simply put, that what we think and feel and believe, what we focus our attention on, what we expect, all factors in to what our world looks like, and our experience of it.
It means that we can change our minds, and in so doing, change our life, and our planet.
There are countless places to look, where a new level of thinking is taking hold, where change is starting to happen. 12-step recovery has a wonderfully simple model with which a personal inventory can be taken. Do you even know what you think, really? Maybe it’s time to find out. Take an inventory. Look at how you think about every single thing in your world. You may be surprised. You may even be shocked at what you find. But before we can begin to operate on a new level of thinking we must be familiar, intimately familiar, with the old level. We cannot set out on a journey to a new place if we have no idea where we are to begin with.
Psychologists tell us that every one of us thinks an average of between 65,000 and 70,000 thoughts a day and 90 to 95% of those thoughts are repetitive. We have become numb to our own thought, yet we wonder why the same thing keeps happening. I’ll tell you why; it’s because we don’t know what we’re thinking. Literally.
There are the teachers of our day that are spreading the word of modern day transcendence. People like Deepak Chopra, M.D., and Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle and Mary Manin Morrissey, Dr. Wayne Dyer and Iyanla Vanzant, Amit Goswami, Ph.D., and Dr. Albert Einstein and Dr. Ernest Holmes and the Reverend Dr. Michael Beckwith are putting together the pieces and presenting them again for our consideration. They are articulating a different level of thinking that they will be the first to admit is nothing new, but rather has been known since the earliest of times.
The Buddah is quoted as saying, "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become."
These are smart people, yet they recognize that we share something essential; we share our humanity, and all that that entails.
We are beginning to experience a resonance again that we recognize is perhaps even the sound of creation itself. It is something we have in common. It is, perhaps, life, perhaps that drive for survival that is calling us together as never before.
There is a place within each person that transcends the status quo and our current models and judgments and labels and fear and beliefs, that cuts through baggage and dogma and greed and fear. It is the place that is recognizing and admitting that the way we have been doing things for the past few hundred years isn’t working so well anymore. Something has to change. And we cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them.
This article copywrite 2007, SpiritPathCounseling.com. Article may be reprinted with this notice included.
"While no one wants to be the first to say it, who each of us is and the fundamental choices each of us makes in life seem to matter very little. Even acts of great courage and intelligence, while admirable and even inspiring, exist in sharp contrast to the apparent unworkability of the world at large. Our greatest technical achievement, walking on the moon, while galvanizing the world for a moment, did not fundamentally alter people's experience of their ability to make a difference in their lives and in the world. Sometime around now - it may have happened five years ago or fifty years ago - but sometime around now, the rules for living successfully on Earth shifted, and an opportunity, unseen before, began to reveal itself. This opportunity is a context - a particular space or paradigm, a way of being - which unexpectedly creates the possibility for a person's life to truly make a difference. In this context, the way each of us answers the question 'What is my life really going to be about?' can literally alter the course of humanity. The possibility to create the context in which people's lives really matter is undoubtedly the most profound opportunity available to anyone, ever."
ReplyDelete"What we want to get to is to have the aesthetic experience of love, kindness, and joy become ordinary."
"In this conversation we discover another possibility: living in a way, now, moment to moment, that makes a difference to life. We discover that as human beings we can live in a possibility instead of in what we have inherited, that instead of just being a human being because we were born that way, we can declare the possibility of being for human beings. This is the work of transformation: bringing forth a breakthrough in the possibility of being human. What we create together is a relationship in which our work can show up as making a difference in people's lives. I welcome the unprecedented opportunity for us to work globally on that which concerns us all as human beings."
-Werner Erhard
Anna, dear, the last two entries are precisely what I was referring to when I suggested that it would be far more interesting if people shared their own original thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe article submitted by Anonymous and the quotes given by Thomas G. (different than Thomas W, correct?) are lovely. But here, is my question to the two of you.
So what?
These are other peoples' thoughts on the topic. But what do you think? Surely you both have something you can add. One would think that if you have provided these quotes they have impacted you personally in some way. Please tell us about those thoughts or consequences.
Otherwise the opportunity for intimacy and learning and for the true co-mingling of souls is lost.
I can read books and look up quotes all on my own. What I cannot do on my own, however, is generate authentic dialog with other human beings.
Am I out of line for making such a request? Do any of you feel the same as I do?
Fervently,
Rachel Y.
Rachel:
ReplyDeleteSorry about that. We had a lot of fun in the past providing different quotes and thoughts from words we found interesting.
But you’re not the first to request that it be our words, so we can have a real discussion.
Maybe, a better approach is to add the quote and with additional thoughts by me.
So...along the last posting.
It seems to me that human beings are set up to follow the path that Thomas W claims in our base level. This work of being aware, really taking a look at your own life is difficult. But I do have hope from others like Christopher and my brother who have taken on transformation to a level that shows up more often in their lives as a result of continuing the conversation and self work.
I believe that people are waking up, and are beginning to understand the fundamental flaws in our materialistic society. The old argument that we are better now then ever isn’t enough to improve our situation because at what cost have we attained this level of comfort, and how long will it last?
We have finally reached a point where after decades of not funding our government’s basics functions, the system is breaking down.
Republicans and democrats fund all their pork projects that cost more then the basic cost of funding government spending on things we do want government to do. Then the free market argument and government cost too much is held up when important things do need to be funded. It's such an irony that we don’t call it BS. If you want to have less government Mr. Conservative free market, then why do the conservative parties spend so much on pork projects?
We need government that isn’t able to add pork to a bill, so that each subject that congress takes up will be what it is. So Corp America can't buy off our government officials after we spent so much getting and voting our representatives into office.
We need government to provide the basic services, and not have to go back to get funding all the time.
We need government oversight, because being a genius doesn’t mean you won’t make mistakes, lie, cheat or steal.
Personal Credit cards should not have a limit that exceeds what you can possibly pay monthly. Giving a 5 thousand dollar credit line to someone still in college is a bait and hook game, and the credit card companies having far too much power of our government.
Everyone should pay taxes; we don’t need temporary tax cuts so you can stimulate us to go spend when we don’t need to spend. Give us permanent tax cuts if the governments operations are funded, and when we have too much, they can reduce the amount taxed next year. A flat tax capped at $3000 and sales tax would do the job. I think percentages are good for lower income people as a tax percentage rate like sales tax, but the rich should have a capped amount that is fair. The point is, like the tax min idea, that if everyone paid something, we would not be having problems year after year, and continue these arguments about free markets or more government.
As individuals, we need to work on our own lives so that we may begin to be conscious of where our money is spent. Our education system didn’t teach us the pitfalls of perception, so that we could see the self defeating patterns that human consciousness does in order to stay the same and survive. Our education system doesn’t prepare us for the specific job skills we will need in the real world, and many other countries have succeeded in their education system, they don’t complain that we are spending too much on education and that it does no good, they are getting better results then America. Its an insider game, the rich know how to get good grades by repeating classes, get into master programs at Ivy League schools, and finally they can afford to do an internship for free to show a prospective employer that they have education and experience. This is a game that middle income families can’t give their kids, and so many talented are left behind.
So as we begin to wake up, the planet is struggling with our slow rate of learning, while our corporations in the name of our comfort rape natural resources and destroy eco systems. Will we have enough time, which will be the real question, regardless of our best intentions of being a holistic loving world community? Such a plan does look a lot like a world socialistic order, and boy does that have a whole new set of problems, and once again, the people like Thomas W will point the finger at the UN to prove this isn’t possible because we can’t even manage a business let alone the whole world.
To the nay sayers, I leave the start of the last posting,
Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them.”
With great faith,
Tom Gallagher
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI will join in for a moment just to echo your request for personal thoughts and expressions....I have long been of the opinion that quotes and rehashing has a potential of becoming just another academic exercise (at best!) and this practice leaves something to be desired (in my humble view) in terms of personal "connection" to the conversation (which, for the record, I am always interested in furthering). We are lucky to have so many well spoken and well intended individuals contributing to this forum, and getting to know YOU all better would be great. Like Rachel, I can read and look up articles and do research on my own, too.
To be perfectly honest (a virtue, I have been told), I actually skip over comments that are nothing but quotes......maybe that speaks more to my impatience than to anything else, but that is the truth in all of its glory!
There now. That's my 5 cents worth.Written with all due respect to all who agree and disagree.
Thank you, Anita, for echoing my sentiments.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your last comments too, Thomas. It's so much more informative to hear authentic personal perspectives on matters large and small.
I am grateful, too, for being granted the grace, as a newcomer, to have a voice even when going against the grain.
Here's to even more in-depth exploration together.
Greetings to you Dot!
ReplyDeleteI was just speaking kindly of you to a friend and wondering how you have been. So nice to have you back in our midst.
It's comforting to be reminded that there is objective evidence as to the power of love and yet, for those of us who regularly access such power in our lives, no objective finding will convince us any more than our own direct experience.
My father often told me, even as I grew into adulthood, that, "The light that powers our world, the stars above, and shines in each of our hearts, will always lead us to love, if only we will let it."
That, for me, has been a guiding passage and a question that serves as my daily ritual. "In what ways am I blocking the love within me from manifesting?" The day then serves as a means of me removing those barriers and letting love reach through.
I think that knowing he has affected me so, would bring my father much joy.
Anna
I've been following this blog from before it went off the air. Now it's back and I still don't understand a lot of the people who participate in this "conversation." You seem to be quite intelligent and yet you go on about the "power of love" as if it were something real. Where did pragmatism go?
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is why this country elected a bleeding heart liberal for President. Now, however, if we give all of our money away, we'll have nothing to fight over except our very survival. Where will love be then? You talk about fear -- that's fear, my friends.
Did any of you ever think about that? Seriously. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but am simply not getting it.
Sincerely,
Victor
I have been reading the blog and was wondering if in our discussion we had inadvertently polarized the human experience into the camps of symbiotic relationships (harmony, love) verses survival of the fitness (a highly competitive dog eat dog view). I would propose that both are valid and warrant equal acknowledgement and attention. So with knowing that about ourselves then it would be an important question to ask how we might integrate the two so we can find our way through life in general and this current economic situation. I think all too often we have knee jerk responses to the situations at hand and therefore over correct.
ReplyDeleteIn light of our blog facilitator’s questions, I would like offer some recent and relevant experience. Now I am in no way an economist, but I am currently having economic experience; I am working through a foreclosure. What I have observed is the Bank holding the mortgage sent out an Appraiser, to evaluate a short sale value, who evidently came back with the same value that was proposed a year ago. Now I have witnessed a significant drop across the country with property values, yet somehow this condo, which is now a unit in an abandoned complex, which has half of the units broken into, has somehow retained full value. The agent who is working with me did a Brokers Pricing Opinion (BPO) and came in about 40K less, very close to the offers which are currently being made. We looked into this further by calling the Appraiser the Bank hired. What we found is the Bank out sourced the BPO to another company, which then turned around and hired a real estate agent, not a licensed Broker. When we questioned the Appraiser, he informed us that he came in with a lower value, but the middle company reporting to the Bank told him to change the value to what the Bank was wanting. The irony does not stop there either. Shortly after we had completed the financial investment, certain terms were not met which required us to investigate what was real happening. In that journey we discovered four months prior to investing in the property, it was valued at 62K and four months later, in 2007, it reappraised to 100K. A substantial increase happened with no improvements during the year in which the housing market started nose diving. There are a lot more details involved in this fraudulent situation which I will ignore for time sake, though I will let you know I sought help from an attorney, the Fraud Dept. within the Bank itself as well as the State’s Real Estate division.
One thing I noticed (with the Bank specifically) is the ‘perspective’ is too far removed to what is happening. On can look from the tower and have an overview and plan, but standing alone in that perspective leaves out the crucial information required to what is actually happening on the ground; both perspectives are crucial if you want a clearer picture of reality. My Father shared an example with me in response to the Banks request for a BPO comparison. He explained that the German Army in World War Two placed its officers at the front of the battle because the were privy to what was actually happening and therefore were able to collaborate and develop effective strategies. In this specific situation, outsourcing leaves an opportunity for a whole host of behaviors (apathy, fraud, inflation, etc.) that ultimately resulted in appropriating responsibility.
Thomas W. suggested that part of the problem is we think we can manage a world economy and I would agree with him in that we are not having a correct relationship with and to that goal; possibly somebody in a tower proposed that as a viable reality. I feel an important question is, “What dream and /or drive in us would have us think we could manage a global economy? What are those beliefs we emphatically hold to as reality that distort our perspective and create the resultant atmosphere?”
I offer some thoughts for consideration:
- Commonsense has been replaced with intellectualism.
When I began my financial experience, I noticed on several occasions an uncomfortable gut level response to which I over-road and rationalized, ‘You are just nervous about trying something new.’ Ironic that after all said and done, I would describe my experience as rotten; a reference to the sense of smell, nothing rational about that. At times we examine the world from what I would describe our internal senses network which is different then the actual corresponding outer sensory function to which we might reference. I would say that in my education, I was taught thinking alone was given a hierarchal position of best in regards to my other sensory inputs. Education might serve the student best by admonishing one to listen to the inherent responses of all our senses so that we might arrive to the consensus…commonsense. Please don’t take this out of context and apply commonsense being used to solely solve a math equation; this is more applicable with the humanities, creating a business plan, but then again Scientist placing satellites in space and Crediting Agencies giving sub-prime mortgages ‘A’ ratings might benefit from commonsense as well.
- The polarizing perspective that Nature ‘solely’ exhibits the ‘survival of the fittest’ strategy and that this view alone should stand as a fundamental building block of business.
What I mean by this is we can get so highly competitive we can forget about the other valid aspects of nature, i.e. adaptation, evolving and relationships that are mutually beneficial. Thomas W. you gave me the title ‘provocateur’ in regards to a situation you shared previously where the bright youthful minds of academia where gridlocked in this highly competitive behavior. Thomas find the provocateur in yourself so the next time you encounter such behavior you might offer a question like…What kind of outcomes result from this type of strategy and is there a possibility to create a situation where one moves from win/loose to win/win? In the process you might observe the integration of our fight/flight with thought and commonsense.
- Big is better.
We only have to look to nature and observe its balances and checks regarding population explosions and how it brings things back into harmony. I think that is a good place to look since millions of years on evolution might constituent an accurate model of reality. What happened about enforcing the antitrust laws?
- Believing “We”, as a nation and species, are ‘Independent verses Interdependent.’
Thanks, I enjoy reading and participating with you all.
MAK
Thanks MAK,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your discussion on being interdependent, or at least that’s where my listening was. :)
I would like to share my experience trying to sell a home too. We tried to short sell our house, got an 80% value for purchase offer back in Sept of 08, the mortgage company denied it. Recently, they foreclosed and Fannie may picked it up for a thousand dollars less then our short sell offer. The insurance underwriter said he would have approved the short sell offer, but my mortgage company didn’t care. Ex Wife lost her job in Sept of 07, and there was a good possibility that if she stayed in the house, they would have let her keep the house. The mortgage company lied to her to get her out, and then foreclosed on it. Good news is we lived in it for more then two years, so no taxes on the foreclosure. My credit is another thing. My real estate friend tells me that only 1/3 of short sells are being approved. I think banks just got a bunch of money under the no rules first 350 billion stimulus, so they decided to sit on a majority of the real estate till the market returns a better value. The new stimulus plan hopes to make the fair market value equal allowing the banks to sell without a loss, which at least will begin to move properties. This doesn’t mean that the property owner will get a decreased interest rate or reduced payments.
But hey, its not a sellers market, its a buyers market. Tax perks
Better today then yesterday, better tomorrow then today.
Tom G
MAK, nice to have you with us again.
ReplyDeleteI was struck by a thought similar to one you expressed prior to reading your comments and so smiled, knowing that a variety of people are likely feeling similarly.
Our societal tendency, especially over the last few years, to over-simplify matters by polarizing a discussion (it's this or it's that), pretending there's no middle ground or perhaps no transcendent idea.
Clearly I fell into that trap as well... referring to a choice between love or fear. My realization in all of this is that it may more truthfully be the choice of exercising love in the midst of fear or a third option still.
The other challenge, of course, is the nature of words. When I say, "love," how do others interpret that word. To some it is soft, fuzzy, warm, weak -- to others it is strong, courageous, wise, holistically minded, etc.
When I first re-opened this dialog, my question was what is life about for you now, in the midst of the circumstances we find ourselves in? While some have shared their thoughts challenges, a lot of us have also resorted to railing against the system or have instead defended it.
I'd like to re-ask the original question and see what we are willing to explore together, so:
Given that there are numerous elements beyond our immediate control, what are you doing to manage your own experience? What are you doing that you find to be helpful for you or others? What have you witnessed others doing that works? What have you found that doesn't work? How are you personally influencing the world within your reach?
Christopher, it was a most wonderful surprise to see you this week. I had no idea that you were working with my new colleagues.
ReplyDeleteRe-visiting this discussion, with some newcomers and some who have been with us for what seems like years, I agree that our conversations of the past now seem prescient. The question you ask, while consistent with our past topical explorations, seems more relevant than ever.
To answer your current question, my friend, what I have done -- as you know -- was to follow in the footsteps of our compatriot, JJ. I left my previous employer quite simply because I found I was no longer able to demonstrate the level of strong, courageous, wise love to which you refer, while in that role. I had allowed myself to become a lesser man because of my own conflicts.
The move to a very different application of my field of study and an entirely new environment has given me a wonderful chance to examine who I am now -- and to challenge myself as to how I show up in this world. I am now more keenly aware of how much we each have the opportunity to shape the conversations around us.
Many people are nervous in this time and to choose to be one who encourages calm and, as you have discussed with my groups before, looks to determine what elements we can control, is proving to be helpful. I seem to be a much welcome voice of reassurance.
I realize that the culture in which I was raised is infused with much passion and was one that equates love with the very force of life. But for those who are quick to write off love as irrelevant in the face of difficult times and who would pit such a power against pragmatism, as a scientist, may I offer another view. Love, when defined as Christopher has suggested (holistic, strong, using the wisdom of our experience), leads us to a pragmatism that goes beyond our own ideologies. At least, that has been the case with me. I like the notion of love in the midst of fear as being a third choice.
The decisions we make now, collectively and as individuals, will determine our immediate future, yes. But our thoughts and actions will also carry an effect that ripples far out into the future as well.
Let it be said that we were wise in the time of trouble, that we found courage when there was reason to despair, and that we extended our concern to others when all about us told us to watch out for number one.
This is my hope and my prayer for each of us, my friends.
Silvio
Silvio!
ReplyDeleteSo nice to have you back with us (your friends and colleagues have all been asking about you).
I appreciate your thoughts about defining (or perhaps re-defining) our notions of what love is. As you and MAK both suggest, it is certainly time for us to transcend our past models and to overcome our tendency toward polarization.
As to what I'm doing, I'm getting up and truly looking at my day by asking the question as to what is absolutely essential and what falls into the category of "busy work." By abandoning the non-essential, I'm finding that I am re-capturing precious time to pray and meditate, meet friends for coffee, listen to music, journal, and share conversations like we share here. Boiling it down, I'm taking charge of my life experience (something you encouraged me to do when we first met, Christopher).
I'm eager to hear more of your examples, however, as I am sure others have found additional ways to make life richer, even in the midst of chaos.
Warmly,
Anna
P.S. Silvio, please contact me when you get a moment. Would love to catch up.
The long lost Jesuit returns. How fitting that Brother Silvio comes to us sharing his words of love (and yes, lest anyone be disappointed, this comment is ripe with sarcasm).
ReplyDeleteSemantics, I must say, has greatly influenced my perception about this topic. Now, if one defines "love" as our host has so done, then of course one may suggest that it begets strength and pragmatism. One could also define a cumquat as a koala bear and thus defend its reason for being in a tree, as one entirely different than would otherwise be.
Nevertheless, I do not disagree that much of our current troubles have arisen from the self-centered nature of not only our leaders, but of each of us as well. A writer in the Times once referred to our current syndrome as a "serious case of infantile regression." Whatever one may call it, we have seriously wandered from the path of cognitive responsibility and have come to assume quite commonly that wresting power from one another serves some purpose other than that of pleasing our seldom satiated egos.
Now, so as not to pontificate without also answering my own previous question, may I state that I am diligently working each day to influence those around me to be more "holistically minded" (though I would never use such a term in public for fear of inciting riotous laughter). It may surprise you, but I am also taking a serious look at my own tendency to utilize sarcasm, mockery, and cynicism as the means by which I put people on the defensive (for the intended purpose of having them listen to more inscrutably to my remarks). In light of what I am now attempting to accomplish (encourage actual cognitive resonance, as opposed to my previous tact of simply winning an argument), I am considering the possibility that, as effective as this tactic has been in past times, its effectiveness may have waned.
We shall see, my colleagues, whether my new tactics work effectively or whether my lack of skill in this regard, combined with the utter stubbornness of those with whom I attempt to collaborate, foils all efforts.
But regardless of the outcome, I rest with much greater assurance knowing simply this -- that we indeed love one another.
Cynically yours,
Thomas W.
I wonder, dear Thomas, what would happen if you truly did allow yourself to converse without all of your sarcasm and witty repartee'.
ReplyDeleteYou hide so consistently behind it that I wonder if your actual voice is one still recognizable to you. Should we ever have the privilege of hearing from the real you, I wonder what (or whom) we would hear.
Lovingly,
Anna
Thomas W., not to isolate your example (for we all take part on some level in our own version of your struggle) -- but you seem to be at war with yourself. For me, I think this battle is often what is referred to as the war between "head" and "heart." On some level we can see that what we collectively and individually are doing is clearly not working -- and yet, we have learned how to deal with the world in this less effective fashion -- it has become a comfortable habit.
ReplyDeleteI congratulate you for recognizing how your sarcasm no longer works now that your wish to accomplish cognitive resonance and more genuine collaboration. That you are striving to generate holistic thinking (regardless of what one may choose to call it) is also most laudable.
Personally, what I would hope we would not lose, as you seek to modulate your approach, is the raw honesty that always cuts through your gamesmanship. For me, I am looking more deeply into the actual impact and outcome that are generated by my actions (as opposed to the ones I imagine are being created).
This deeper look into my participation in life is indeed necessary and not without its level of discomfort, at times. Still, in such an age as we find ourselves, I think the opportunity for re-examining our old paradigms, regardless of how "enlightened" or "effective" we feel they may have been, is now highly overdue.
Rachel Y.
Love what you do and who you are...
ReplyDeleteWe do make the world a better place and make a difference for others when we have the principle in our heart, in fact, our economy would not suffer bubbles if we all individually started from the intent of love.
So many have lost love of self and life from our materialistic push to have a strong economy.
We have lost the ethic of work, this great information age, instead rewarding those that do nothing but push buttons on cyber space.
It is because we have lost the principle that we are now suffering a great global financial melt down, and our way out of the mess is to begin to put wages back into American pockets so they will spend money on things that will add to love in their lives.
To reward the banks is to give money to share holders and economist that got us into this mess in the first place believing that bubbles make you rich, and will do nothing to get people spending money with confidence again.
As Gibran said long ago, having the intent of love with your work binds you to yourself, everyone and God.
On Work
Kahlil Gibran
"...Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune. But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born, And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life, And to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret.
But if you in your pain call birth an affliction and the support of the flesh a curse written upon your brow, then I answer that naught but the sweat of your brow shall wash away that which is written.
You have been told also that life is darkness, and in your weariness you echo what was said by the weary. And I say that life is indeed darkness save when there is urge, And all urge is blind save when there is knowledge, And all knowledge is vain save when there is work, And all work is empty save when there is love; And when you work with love you bind yourself to yourself, and to one another, and to God..."
This last comment surfaces what has been my suspicion all along -- that "love" is a code word for "God." I've found that whenever one finds a group of people advocating "love" and "wholeness," you have a group of "spiritual" people hiding behind holism.
ReplyDeleteOur "silly gods," as Bill Maher points out in his film, "Religulous," are at the heart of the vast majority of our problems in this world. That otherwise intelligent people would fall prey to such notions is a perfect example of a past paradigm that needs to disappear (and the quicker the better).
Thank you, for finally exposing the true heart of this supposedly "open-minded discussion." Your "God" is finally out of the closet!
Unapologetically,
Victor
Victor, I find it interesting that you would accuse this group of being something other than "open-minded" and yet in the same comment demonstrate nothing but disrespect and disdain for people who see the world through different eyes than yours.
ReplyDeleteI am not a person with any religious background and am, at heart, a scientist and an agnostic. As a scientist, I know that there is much about our nature as human beings; and much about our universe that we do not begin to understand. It would appear to me that close-mindedness in any form, not merely when it appears in the form of religion, is the cause behind our on-going troubles on the planet.
Though it may sound trite, some of the most insightful people I know are people deeply committed to a religious path. Their open-heartedness and willingness to recognize that a world exists beyond their own limited preconceptions is, to the surprise of many, an essential part of their system of faith.
Obviously, I state only my point of view, however, and I'd be happy to hear other perspectives.
Kindly,
Dot P.
Oh My God Victor...lol
ReplyDeleteI usually don’t think about Gibran as a part of organized religion unless you believe that isms like Buddhism are such…
I believe in God, but not organized religion. My God is not separate from the universe, my God is the collective universe.
That’s why my concept & intent of love is born out of truth, not the superficial political correctness that comes out of organized faith because of its parts of our human nature. The power of faith must have the belief that one holds the only truth, and thus causes the irony you don’t like, but indeed is the most powerful force for human nature.
There is a great problem, but given that, we do know that people of faith try harder in their lives, while they may become more closed minded; their intent is still a good one.
The argument that if we got rid of the delusions of organized religion, we would solve our problems is not possible. People are not going to give up their faith, thus it falls on a poor argument against discussing the power of love and intention as a way individually to transforming the world.
We go about life, pointing the finger, great leaders are born not because they offer great solutions but because they were great finger pointers, Hitler was a master at this game.
Its like we have a hand over our face, pointing the finger that its some else’s problem, and our perception is forever altered by the perceptual filtered lenses that only allow us to listen to that which we already always think is the truth, no openness to God by a different definition and love as a way of being because it is too abstract to be real, scientifically speaking of course.
Victor, my friend, it appears you have accomplished your goal of stirring up a reaction. I also realize that your objection with religion is, while sincere, a method you use as a point of contention -- but to what end? Merely to, in your mind at least, prove people wrong?
ReplyDeleteAs a biologist, I have spent my entire adult life searching to understand how biological life works. The more I learn of life's ever-deepening intricacies, the more I am fascinated by the deeper question of what is it that generates life; that sustains it; that allows it to take so many forms?
Truthfully, we do not understand this most essential question of our biological quest as scientists -- and that is, what is the very nature of life itself?
Your having ruled out the existence of a force beyond our understanding must mean that you, by some stroke of good fortune, can answer these most essential questions for us -- that you have narrowed down the field so well, that we can rule out the possibility of there being a higher intelligence or that life itself is that greater force.
So, please, my friend, do tell us what is the ultimate nature of life? How does it function? We eagerly await your wisdom, since as fools, some of us have placed our faith in the distinct possibility that such a higher intelligence may be at the root of this force we call life.
I'd like to call a timeout on Victor-bashing.
ReplyDeleteWhile Victor is most certainly entitled to his opinion, and is not by any means alone in this crowd in terms of his beliefs, I'd like to direct us back to question at hand.
What are you doing about this life, right now?
Regardless of whether we believe in love, god, a schmoo, or nothing at all, how are your beliefs impacting your actions -- and what effect are your actions having on the world around you?
We all seem to find some comfort, as Thomas G. said, in pointing the finger. But unless we, ourselves, have solutions that we are carrying out, we are merely -- to use a somewhat crude expression -- pissing into the wind.
So, let's all step up, and instead of merely issuing a complaint, let's provide some workable solutions that we are putting into practice -- ones that appear to be working or at least have the promise of working.
My hope is, as the purpose of this blog states, that our ideas together might inspire breakthrough thinking and actions in a world much in need of just such solutions.
Thanks!
Christopher
Thanks, but I'm used to having people bash me.
ReplyDeleteSo you want to know how my belief in a non-fictional reality impacts my actions?
Well, for starters, rather than assuming that our planet is going to burn up in some fiery apocalypse, I'm working to clean up our city because I believe generations to come will share this place with us. I formed a citizen's environmental clean-up group that has finally, after two years of dealing with self-interested politicians, gathered enough public support for cleaning up a local site that the state finally kicked in, assessed some fines and is now going to be accepting bids on the clean up.
I also meet with high school and college kids regularly on Thursday nights and provide a supportive place for those who've been ostracized by their families for not believing in a religious myth.
I get your point, too, that simply complaining doesn't do any good. But I also can't stand to see people continuing to propagate such a damaging pack of lies that generates so much harm.
I know we don't have a clue as to how life came into being -- and I'm not saying that there's not some possibility of an intelligent aspect to how life functions, I just think it's sad that we make up these brutal versions of what that force is, call it "God" or "love" and then use those ideas to separate, manipulate, and isolate people.
I hear you, Victor. I'm certainly in favor of having whatever belief system (or unbelief system) we embrace lead us to a more compassionate, saner existence together.
ReplyDeleteCongrats on your endeavors, too. Sounds like your making a difference out there.
There you go, Victor. That wasn't so hard now, was it? And I agree, congratulations are due -- your work is inspiring!
ReplyDeleteAs I contemplate how involved you are in your community, I realize that while some are gifted to inspire the masses, others of us tend to work more singularly, one person at a time. That is certainly my best modality and one which allows me the time to have meaningful conversations and to work more deeply.
As I look at the effect of my interactions with this group and the heightened sense that has been arising in many of us over the last several years, I must admit that it has assisted me in my day-to-day practice -- that of being fully present with whomever I engage. Hand-in-hand with this process has been my ability to witness my own judgment and biases as they arise (as in the case of Victor, for example -- I became rather defensive and found myself being upset for some time afterward).
The topic of verbal violence (that is what his words felt like to me) and then the emotional battery that we carry out within our own bodies after the fact, is something I am paying particular attention to these days. It resonates so fully with a statement Rachel made -- that of being at war with oneself.
I'm rambling now, but let me end by expressing my appreciation to all of you, for creating a forum where one can think out loud and find wise supportive voices who provide perspective. Just taking the time to write these few words has provided me with a fresh perspective on my process in a way that will allow me to better assist others.
Sincerely,
Dot P.
Religion!
ReplyDeleteWhat is this thing that robs the world of truth... that steals the meaning of words and turns them around to corrupt our very souls… all in the name of God? (Cannot religion be saved?)
Truth!
Who can know it? Is it not also made up of the billions of lies and untold stories that live in the hidden passages of our minds? (Who then speaks the truth?)
Love!
What is this essence we so misunderstand… so fear that we run… fight… steal… plunder… kill... do anything to keep from surrendering to ITS viciously compassionate nature? (Will you then be my lover?)
STOP! NOW!
What if we were to let such love run uncensored through our souls… wildly… with complete abandon... no strings attached? What if LOVE could heal us and this crazy world we have created? (Who shall we then run from?)
Wait!
How can we take such a chance? No… we dare not… for if all of our misery… this whole wretched mess… turns out to be of our very own making… who then should we blame, if not LOVE?
Oh my, Rizzin! What can I say, other than that your words brought me out of hiding... from the wings where I wanted to speak up, but found myself strangely shy.
ReplyDeleteThank you... for me, you've said it all.
Much love to you all,
Jonnie
Well, wow! Count me as double shocked. Not sure what to say other than, Rizzin, you certainly have a way with words. And Jonnie, no need to be shy with this bunch.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to both of you. I'm going to have to chew on Rizzin's poetry for a bit before I say anything else. Anyone else, have a response?
Religion is a product of the ego, the ego is not you, your ego is running the show with repetitive thoughts from your past that have very little to do with your present possible future. Although that is not the intent that brings people to religion and continue to practice it as a vehicle to praise an intelligent designer. It was Love that was the intent, but the ego got lost along the way.
ReplyDeleteRizzin brings us back to love in the only truth that words can express via poetry! Poetry doesn’t pretend to be the truth, allowing people to draw their own assumptions. If we just looked at truth this way, we would forever be free of the past beliefs that stop our possibility in the present.
As I watched Eckert Tolle talk about faith, it occurred to me his message from Zen, but also from all religions, expressing a lie in the fall, human beings got lost to their own divinity changing the words of mainstream religions.
So while we understand that in the name of religion ignorance and hate occur because of our need to find comfort in pointing the finger, we do this because of our ego pattern machine.
We can't get rid of ego so easily, even people who are enlightened admit as the saying goes, "Before enlightenment, chop wood & carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood & carry water."
We collapse the ego and the spirit as if they are the same thing, and we forget even when we have the understanding not to do this. We collapse our assumptions and what really is in our memory as if they are the same thing.
In the name of their Gods and religions, the same amount of greatness and love have occurred then all the wars and killings. The irony is that in normal human motivation to be altruistic, to give and love unconditionally, doesn’t come naturally, children seem to show it more often, but in the same moment their egos pop out and demand that the world serve them. The faith in people hearts, regardless if its truth or not, has been the catalyst, I believe, that has made millions of people choose to do something loving for others when normally they would have turned a blind eye.
But since we are discussing the human perception, it’s clear that there is a power in their real or delusional faith. We only need to pick up a copy of the secret, attend one of the many spiritual and motivational seminars to learn how the power of attraction works. Even if we don’t go off the spiritual deep end and just look at what Napoleon Hill found out with very practical observation in his book "think and grow rich". The things you think become your reality; if you’re positive you will focus on positive things and bring them into your life. The mind, even the brightest of us, consciously only focuses on 4-7 things at a time, and if those things are negative, your not able to see beyond the horizon metaphorically speak.
It’s too simple to say Religion is the problem, when we fail to realize that everything that exists in reality is here for a reason.
It’s really all about the love, don't forget it!
There are many questions, and it would seem few answers, but that’s just because there are an infinite number of answers, each one affecting other answers/solutions, thus making it difficult to choose the best possible solution.
Amote, being in the mystery
Tom G
I agree with Thomas -- religion is not the problem, but merely a manifestation of the problem. The problem? Us -- individually and collectively.
ReplyDeleteIn one of our past discussions, I believe it was Nyguen who brought up the salient point that attempting to rid ourselves of our ego is perhaps the most egoistic act we could attempt.
Ego is merely our sense of self -- a byproduct of having evolved our consciousness to a point of self-awareness. The opportunity we now face as a species is to expand our sense of self so as to re-connect with the world around us -- to understand that, in fact, we are not separate, but inextricably connected. Our ability to thrive as a species (or at the very least survive) likely depends upon our ability to take this next step.
How shall bring this expanded awareness this about? Perhaps this is at the heart of what our discussion could explore?
Dot P.
I love that, I am egotistical for trying to rid myself of my ego....
ReplyDeleteI don’t know how to keep myself awake after I have attained some of this transformation, and the understanding has not become an automatic way of being for me.
I believe that Nyguen, yours and my context of ego are possibly different. Eckert Tolle seemed to be saying that ego represented our past knowledge and assumptions when I heard him discussing it, I may have missed the point.
In my definition, ego and spirit (me) are different, and it helps me to separate them to see what is occurring perceptually for me.
If we are not to rid ourselves of ego, then what?
The automatic pattern machine (ego) seems to be so redundant in its process, so quick to hold on to the past ways of being, to be safe, to not change.
The spirit or thing that I call me, I believe, exists in the moment of speaking words of possibility into reality, everything else that occurs after that is taken over by the (Ego) pattern machine and is no longer run by me. I am simply a passenger in this body, until I decide to change course and with the power of words choose a new way to be.
It is this power from Zen teaching, which I believe is this new transformed way of being, that brings love and interconnectedness.
Open to learn
Tom G
Where did all the ego's go away to after the conversation changed the focus on "it".
ReplyDeleteIs there nothing to discuss if we are not talking about the world outside of our ego and spirit?
We've been so interested in this conversation and Thomas raises an interesting question. Rizzin's poetry is often confounding and that's something he finds difficult.
ReplyDeleteHe sat down and wrote out these questions for me before writing his latest poem... "Why can't we talk about the deeper questions? Why are people afraid to look at what love could do for our world?"
I look at him and realize that for him and even to some extent me, Zee, and others of our little tribe, we are living lives very different from most of America. We have very little in terms of possessions, but we have so much abundance in terms of our love, care, and friendships.
It seems like I see more people each day who are starting to realize the value of these simple things. Maybe what's happening in our world today could lead us back to what really matters.
Peace and Blessings,
Skye
I'm taking a look at this thread and realizing that I pulled back out of an unconscious reticence to be seen by some of my colleagues who read this blog as drifting too far into the world of ethereal concepts. This frustrates me considerably.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering how many others who read or actively participate in our conversation feel this same inner conflict -- between heart and head. Clearly there is a position of balance and yet I am suspect that what we call "balance" in this current day and age is anything but that. Instead we have become so one-sided as to the left-brained, either-or, mechanized mode of thinking that even the mention of the word "love" sends some into suspicion, while others scoff that such a concept would even be mentioned.
I'd like to ask, "What is wrong with us? How did we get this way?" But first I need to ask, "How did I get this way? Where did I begin shutting off such a vital part of my own nature?"
Sincerely,
Anna
Anna, our charming romanticist, surely you must know that the word love has so many meanings as to create a divisive tone at the mere mention of the word.
ReplyDeleteIn our current state of affairs, while people may secretly yearn for their mummy to tuck them in at night, their deeper desire is for a strong knight to ride in on a handsome steed and rescue them from their own stupidity. Thus leadership, in such an age, trumps love.
But do not despair -- once we are secure that our house will not blow down, an ample crowd will be happy to engage in a "meaningful dialog" about the softer side of Sears.
In reality, however, should we dare to explore such terrain, the bigger question at hand presently is: Do we have the wisdom and will to collaborate to find a workable solution to our woes; or will we instead allow our divisions to remain so firmly rooted that we argue our way right of the precarious precipice upon which we are perched. Based on current happenings, I am sadly betting on the latter.
Thomas W's comment, regardless of whether we personally agree or disagree with his take on love, brings up a valuable question. What type of leadership is needed in today's world (personally and collectively)?
ReplyDeleteTherefore, since it looks like we've pummeled the subject of love, grace, and wholeness completely, I'm going to invite us to explore the topic of leadership in the conversataion entitled, "Genius Explores the Notion of Servant Leadership."
Please join us there and add your additional comments or thoughts to that conversation.
Thanks!
Christopher
Thomas W – my question for you following your comment is whether a mom tucking her child in isn’t a leader as well as a loving presence or, conversely, if the knight doesn’t love as well as lead?
ReplyDelete