Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation XII

Certainty, masculinity, narcissism. Throughout my life, I have too often heard these terms used as synonyms. They have been used by angry men to justify emotional reactivity, violence, and hatred, and they have been used by angry women to justify emotional reactivity, denigration, and hatred. My response is that stupid is as stupid does.

The headscarf debate going on in Turkey right now is a fascinating case study of multicultural gender relations. Atuturk's strong-arm secularism has had a lasting influence in a largely Muslim country with an influential military. The international social question could generally be phrased as, "What constitutes--or feeds into--progressive global sustainability now?" This is equally as relevant in Kosovo, India, China, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, Sudan, and Texas. While the Acid-Face Burkha Club enjoys a relatively small worldwide membership, they have the "positive" attribute of being able to say clearly where they stand on gender relations. It's "positive" because this certainty offers a type of psychological security for women as well as for men; we can all know where we stand. It's virulent because, once violence towards women is espoused as a political method, there can be no end to the violence until the world population is covered in beards and burkhas. So it is a political stance based on public violence, reputedly due to some sort of private appreciation. Of course, the violence must come first and universally before the appreciation can be seen. An interesting justification of universal violence to purportedly respected women. I certainly don't want that sort of respect. This sort of thinking shows clearly how security is different than peace; the Acid-Face Burkha Club members cannot rest until the world population is punished into respectful submission of their ideology.

The flipside of this security is something along the lines of enforced openness. Headscarf bans are an example. We want to be free--sterilized--of virulent religious-political dogma, so we legislate clothing expectations in the name of liberalism. Also interesting. The evangelical liberal cannot rest until the crusade to unmask every woman, to remove the mobile and public sense of privacy and piety that a headscarf can symbolize, is complete. A further step in such a political agenda might be to legislate against the usage of cosmetics (which some feminists have taken up as a more personal, radical value against some sort of male oppression, although I have yet to find many manly men who are interested in the fashion industry). In this case, the security is hoped for from secular laws rather than once-and-done religious ideology.

In a post-colonial world, I don't know that suppression of Arab-Muslim culture is a part of a progressive and genuinely liberal agenda. It does look like Muhammad's reformation of Arab culture did benefit the world--in certain ways at least--beyond Arab boundaries. We all know that a largely Catholic Europe was hardly the bastion of progressive liberalism throughout the Dark Ages. What this means for me is that we might have a hard time "placing" or accurately understanding our current political stupidity without considering worldwide political stupidity of earlier generations. There are certainly some common human threads that show some tendencies that I am obviously not exempt from.

Who gets to claim individualism? At this point in time, individualism seems held dearly by EuroAmerican cultures. But, if we want to trace this appreciation of individualism, we can follow the thread back through Catholicism and the emphasis on souls to Greek political individuality to the Hebrew emphasis on helping those in need and holding onto the uniqueness of the tribes of Israel. I blame and venerate the Americans, European Catholics, Greeks, and Jews then. But hold on--Muhammad also talked about each one of us being judged for all of our own actions. Okay, I'll blame and venerate Muhammad as well; lump him in with the prophet Ezekiel, Martin Luther, and Gandhi. Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha, also said something along similar lines, so the circle grows.

But if we look to see where this focus on individualism came from, we should also consider group identification as well. Things get very interesting here. Did Genghis Khan stand out as an extraordinary Mongol, as an individual, or was he more an example and expression of the Mongol tribe? Either way, we can be certain that the huge Mongol influence on world history was not expected of such a small tribe. In fact, it has been stated that the Mongol's ability to benefit from invading so many other societies was largely due to their (until their invasions) relative isolation and economic deprivation. Because they didn't already have customs for legislating huge and very dense societies, they chose what seemed to work best from each society they conquered. (For that matter, how many people expected the Carthaginian general Hannibal to beat Rome? Granted, he didn't beat them brutally enough--didn't break their ability to smash Carthage.) What are we to make of these instances of small groups quickly coming to prominence--whether it be Macedonians, Arab Muslims, Mongolian tribesmen, European merchants and colonialists, Americans, Mormons, or even Bill Gates and his Microsoft empire? This fascinates me. Who's next? What changes are just around the corner? The number of nongovernmental organizations has grown exponentially in the last fifty years, and micro-loans given to individual women and groups of women may be quietly and profoundly changing first banking and then the power dynamics of many societies. Motivated, poor women may be the best new investment opportunity. The fact of the matter is that no one really knows what large-scale influences may come of Youtube being available in Pakistan. The once-impressive British Raj's influence on India has returned to Britain where the most popular dish is curry, where they seemingly could not live without tea.

Similarly, we have no idea what influence it will have on world culture when Islam is integrated into world culture more completely. We know what happens when one society conquers another militarily. The dominant society usually impresses certain values onto the conquered group and aspects of the conquered group seep "upwards" into the dominant society and culture. Any conquering society does well to quickly and thoroughly integrate anything of value, however foreign, into their customs and administration. Look at the Great Khan's Mongols, their decision not to waste time and resources invading a relatively impoverished Europe, and the eventual results that came from Europe's competing principalities remaining outside of the Mongol World Empire and administration. We saw a military conquest with the birth of Islam, but we have no idea what influence on world culture and economy a social spread will have. The same was true of the oppressive Roman Empire's inclusion of Christianity and the same is true of America's openness to the international Jewish community and America's influence on American Jews. We can be certain that neither one religion nor another will survive (or completely disappear), but beyond that, the future is mostly unknown. Some people believe that an apocalypse is impending; they would rather believe in a doctrine of global violence because believing they understand the future gives them a measure of security. I say their security is measured in violence, and apocalypse is extreme, war is extreme.

This is why unflagging certainty in oneself is important. I am not certain of how I might change from becoming better acquainted with Muslims, Mongols, or Macedonians, but I have no need of that type of security. I have not been able to anticipate the ways I've grown from becoming acquainted with pious and libertarian women, but I'm certain I've grown. People only feel the need for security when they feel fear, and when fear is the basis of one's religious or political beliefs, those beliefs tend to support violence.

My certainty is not a masculine thing--I've learned that from women who are certain in themselves. But my certainty cannot be predominantly feminine, Muslim, Jewish, or anything else that I am not. It's simple. Rather than taking and defending a marginal feeling of security by clutching onto some position or marginal identity, I feel comfortable with change because of personal simplicity. Because of this, I am unthreatened by other forms of personal simplicity, unthreatened by other folks' simplicity and comfort. The simplicity is available without joining the Acid-Face Burkha Club or the Patriot Act Promisekeepers, but this certainty does not provide a security based on being unwilling or unable to change.

While love and nonviolence are nice and good and well, while Gandhi did the world a great favor by placing satyagraha squarely on the world stage, while Gautama presented a movement forward from historical Hindu caste-ism (and Hinduism was able to incorporate Gautama's philosophy), I do not believe in a policy of total pacifism. I do, though, believe in pacifists having a place to speak in the public dialogue. It's very simple.

Potential Suicide

Floating in a sea
of your very
own
potential,
there is no escape,
there never was,
never will be.

I was thinking this morning about how the mythical ideas of hell and karma have the same essential meaning. Osho said that rich people need an idea of neverending cycling (karma and reincarnation) so that they know they cannot escape their boredom with life--they must, rather, see through it (life, karma, etc.), burn through it, jump through/into it. He said that, if you struggle every day, though, you want to know that there is an end, a reward, something to be had for all your effort. Therefore, karma and heaven both make sense. Heaven makes sense as a motivation in front of those of us who have less than enough, the poor folks; hell is the flipside, the pusher. Until we wholeheartedly embrace that sameness, the oneness, the pinpoint aliveness we are and which we represent, we live in either personal or societal myths.

And so I've heard some people say that they could not do "this" (life, I suppose) without a mythical (real-or-not) personal savior. I've heard plenty of people affirm part of the meaning of the Buddha's comment that one must enlighten oneself. I like Zen Master Dogen's comment that no buddhas are self-liberated.

Sometimes the answers are much, much simpler than the questions. Sometimes the answers need to allow for and include the complications--the rich abundance from which potential may arise as real forms answering real people. Anyway, I like the doctrine of no escape. It directs us to this very pinpoint moment in which we can accept small blessings and large.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation XI

Equanimity, responsiveness, appreciation rather than tolerance, and an unflagging certainty in oneself combine to make up the next major cultural step after openness to diversity and tolerance of difference. Tolerance is certainly better than domination or warfare, but I've yet to meet a human being who wants to be tolerated. I've also yet to meet someone who enjoys being around people they can tolerate at best. Lastly, I have not met anyone who doesn't want to enjoy themselves, so being tolerated and tolerating may be a lesser of evils (much, much lesser in some cases), but it still won't float your boat. This is a big part of why I emphasize appreciation. Tolerance is a huge step beyond cultural hubris or xenophobia; appreciation is the next step. Actually being willing and able to appreciate strange and sometimes incredibly frustrating folks comes from mindfulness. So I try to avoid speaking of mindfulness as if it happens outside of social situations. I try to speak of mindful appreciation.

Equanimity is a huge part of mindful awareness. And so, I talk about relaxation (which is like low-level or immature equanimity) as being basic to mindfulness. If we try to relax but are only able to do so when we feel sleepy or exhausted or intoxicated, we'll have trouble concentrating. So being wakeful enough to concentrate is basic to intentional relaxation.

Mindfulness can be understood as an intentional and proportional balance between concentration and relaxation (although this is only way one, and far from perfect, of understanding mindfulness). If we include emotions in mindfulness practice, we will be unable to avoid our basic and healthy desire for appreciation of and from others. I'll sometimes tolerate tolerance, but I appreciate appreciation. Without equanimity and mindfulness, though, emphasizing appreciation may just lead us to stick with our social cliques. Rather than continuing to increase our ability to appreciate, we might then limit ourselves to activities or people we already enjoy. So I look for and work towards mature appreciation, mindful appreciation. Mindful appreciation of one's humanity and humanity in general allows us to get beyond personal preferences, different perspectives, and different positionings within various power analyses.

Maintaining mindful appreciation of oneself and others is largely dependent on being responsive--that's perhaps best left for another post. There are common individual abilities and attitudes that feed into responsiveness as well as common agreements or understandings or assumptions that must be accepted (at least provisionally).

The last item that I listed here--an unflagging certainty in oneself--may seem less expected to some folks. Mindfulness (as it's most often been introduced in America) and unflagging certainty in oneself may appear to work in opposing directions, but this is only in appearance or from a limited perspective. If we do not include mindful appreciation and equanimity in how we understand cultural and personal differences, then unflagging certainty just comes out as arrogance and demand--aggressive narcissism. I do not recommend aggressive narcissism. But IF we consider including responsiveness, equanimity, and mindful appreciation in our diversity, AND then we en-gender our considerations of cultural interactions, feminism has something really interesting to add. (When it doesn't include appreciation, feminism is often just as nasty, backwards, and limited as patriarchy; again, I am not for aggressive narcissism with one type of genitals or another, but Narcissus was a male and I think we should talk about that.) In the interest of being able to address a potentially international audience without being kicked out of bed tonight, I think I need to include gender relations, love, and masculinity in what I have to say on subtlety, intimacy, and motivation. Without being able to speak from a masculine perspective, I have little motivation to speak.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation X

The Beats, Boomers, civil rights marchers, Green Peacers, and feminists took a huge leap towards--perhaps even into--multiculturalism. I say "perhaps" because we have little idea right now of just what is possible a few more steps down the road, not to diminish what has happened so far. "Huge leap" is my estimation of what has occurred in that direction. Of course, there is farther to go concerning race relations, wage equality, tax structure, educational system, environmental protection and revitalization, media and corporate responsibility, etc.

As far as I can tell, there are two or three things that stand out as being central now though not addressed adequately. There are the constant issues of economic deprivation paired with population control. It is impossible to speak of one without the conversation being haunted by the other, so we might as well speak of them together. And when I speak of economic deprivation, education, cultural opportunities, and upward mobility are included in that. Everyone is familiar with these issues, though, and I don't necessarily have anything really insightful to add. I don't know that we have adequately theorized "empowerment", resentment and reluctance, and the need for failure in a meritocracy. I think this is where at least an overview of Motivational Interviewing is helpful. In our post-colonial, economically global world, this approach is relevant to the ethnic, class, and specialist differences and relationships between various groups of people. In my opinion, one of the most basic aspects of Motivational Interviewing is that it addresses ambivalence by utilizing "push" motivations as well as "pull" motivations. Rather than trying to tell someone else what to do, motivational interviewing outlines a way to elicit multiple (or simply, "both", in some cases) motivations around any particular topic. Rather than just trying to "accentuate the positive" and ignore the rest, in motivational interviewing, the negative aspects of a situation are not ignored but solutions are not authoritatively provided and enforced.

While the Boomers rejected authoritarianism, GenX-ers tended to go with apathy in response to authoritarianism. Neither rejection nor apathy, though, build or sustain a neighborhood. We can't ignore these common responses, then, but we can't lock ourselves into them either. I don't know that becoming a yuppie or a putz in response is all that helpful either. But in moving forward, it is important to be able to feel the motivations that push us away from what we don't want as well as the motivations that pull us towards what we do. In most current power analyses, I see positives and negatives weighed but not much attention paid to neutrality--especially to equanimity. To some extent, because some Beats and Boomers embraced an influx of Eastern transcendental techniques and rest-inducing techniques, meditation has become important in our culture, perhaps even helping push a revival of prayer and other Christian methods. But because nearly everything that the Boomers pushed was pushed in extremist ways (breaking out of the old forms), transcendence and rest/peace/equanimity techniques have not yet been institutionalized--although this is happening to some extent in some places--rather, so many of the "new" influences are still somewhat disconnected from one another. The point about motivational interviewing, though, is that there are clearly understandable ways of addressing ambivalence even if ambivalence itself never seems clear. So how can we bring these disparate influences together? There are at least three parts to answering that question well.

It's easy enough to negotiate a humanistic perspective's outlook on what needs to be avoided. For the most part, most societies and governments recognize a certain internationlist-humanist thought policing (whether they follow the general trend or not), certain liberal assumptions about how things should be which go against certain historical tribalist anachronisms like the recent Saudi trial of an illiterate woman who was forced to sign a confession to witchcraft of all things. While there may appear to be a certain cultural arrogance in my comment, the Saudis do not claim to be inhumanist; generosity and truthfulness and fairness are part of the Islamic religion. Which might mean that we need to discuss what humanism is or what may be universal/international in humanist values, but we may be able to come up with a common list of things to avoid (even if we maintain a disagreement on hanging illiterate "witches" forced to unknowingly sign confessions). Of course, the applications will be forever debated. C'est la vie. But we can generally agree that not many people want in their society: starvation, disease, lack of opportunity, oppression, environmental degradation, etc. Generally.

The second grouping--things that are generally desired beyond threat avoidance--will be more unique to each society. We should clearly delineate, in international-multicultural discussions, the difference between what humans can agree on universally wanting to avoid (negatively) and the things that individuals and unique societies want (positively). Not everyone wants virtual pornography streaming into every home, accessible to anyone who can turn on a computer and type in a webpage or searchword; some do; more often, it is a question of whether we want to take the risk. While some positions will consistently be seen as more "progressive", I'm not sure I always prefer that progressivism. Sometimes traditional values are much more solid than progressivism, so this needs to be an ongoing discussion within and between societies. I really don't want sex slaves traded into America through Mexico whether that practice is framed as an ancient tradition or a new sort of practice--point being, again, some things can be generally agreed on even if that leaves a few pimps out in the rain.

The third grouping may have a great degree of commonality between various cultural presentations. The neutral aspects of relating which allow us to communicate may also be fairly universal--equanimity, resilience in the face of challenge, a reasonable amount of solidity when dealing with difference and change, rest and relaxation, etc. Again, the values and their proportions that each society emphasizes may be different according to changing circumstances and varied backgrounds, but these are generally recognized though not necessarily taught explicitly in effective ways.

The question that stands out here, then, is: in the dynamic between historical tribalism and the internal health of each uniquely developing living society, how can we note the difference between appeasing tyranny and respecting sovereignty of cultures and individuals? In other words, how can anyone tolerate intolerance? I firmly believe that the new internationalist liberal world order is not necessarily more humane or wise than historical tribalisms of various stripes. But, it is possible for us all to move in a generally positive direction.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation IX

All of my good feelings aren't replenishing fish populations, but they are some sort of beginning. There's a lot of structuring to be done--this is the intellectual and human work that I find fascinating. While in some ways, it can appear as if all that needs to happen is for people to let down their barriers, it doesn't work that way and it never will. Pai-chang said very simply and clearly, "A day without work is a day without food"--realization doesn't come for free even if peace is essentially free.

Kids need to be brought up within some structure if they're to be brought up. If I expect my eggs to be there at the grocery, something has to get them there. And even if there might have been some relatively nice time in history when societies weren't so hierarchical and people didn't feel quite as distanced from one another while being crushed by the overall weight of humanity, well, we can't quite get back there without some MASSIVE drop in population. While God or evolution may help us sort that out with a global spread of avian flu or something, I'm not sure that very many people actually want it to be them dying in the epidemic. "Everybody wanna go up to heaven, none of them want to die."

As much as there needs to be a global structuring of certain institutional functions, emergent change cannot be predicted and absolutely controlled. This is also part of what I find fascinating. When dealing with adaptation and emergence, heuristics and qualities can become much more important than explicit/concrete rules and expectations. So while we may know that we'd like our kids to help take care of us in our old age, we may not know what that will entail exactly. But we can be sure that some appreciation of older generations will be part of what it takes, some appreciation for life, etc. We can know the qualities of life we want to include without knowing exactly what quantities or resources will be needed to fulfill our desires concerning genetic advancements, technological pleasantries, energy usage, etc. And we can be sure that some things concerning human nature and how we learn will not change all that drastically within the next fifty years. We can also know that, while some qualities in human interactions are good universally, we can still have differences in cultural emphases or preferences just as we can allow for individual differences and preferences within various sub-societies (from nation-groups like the EU on down to couples).

Again, this is a big part of where developmental psychology becomes important. We can recognize and support various milestones within individual development. Right now, the next most significant step and ability in development is mindfulness (by whatever names you prefer) following the idealism involved in adolescence. Essentially, when kids reach the age of young adults, they hit a growth spurt in their prefrontal cortices. This allows but does not demand an increase in abilities like planning, mindfulness, impulse inhibition, etc. Essentially, this growth allows the tempering of teenage idealism. From the inside, from the teenagers' or young adults' perspectives, we could call this an application of idealism or what ends up being the beginnings of each generation's actualization or realization of their particular mix of idealisms.

The fact that the Babyboomer generation didn't have this neurological information at their disposal is not an indictment of that generation for what it has failed to accomplish (and the failures are significant). They did a great deal to break open American and Western European society. In my generation of post-USSR Eastern European states and other aspiring potential EU members, there is a similar breakthrough from the established communist/capitalist enforcement of old-school culture. The same is just around the corner in the Middle East. Hopefully, this current generation of young adults in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and developing South Asian countries is learning from the failures and closeminded entitlements of our Babyboomers. God knows we need help with all of it because we are sometimes too close to those people, that generation, and their failures to have perspective on our situation. We need help from outside cultures to the same extent that they can learn from this culture. Young adulthood is the perfect time to start trying to figure out solid but flexible ways of dealing with emergent processes (like raising kids and figuring out ecological sustainability, how to save the Amazon rain forest and whatnot). If we know nothing else, we can be sure that our failures in this generation will be as significant as those of the previous generations. Subsequent generations will have to face those failures, and we might as well do what we can to prepare them for facing those failures rather than glorifying a past they will never be able to experience. Whatever it was like to live in a country and time where people were not so distanced from one another, I'll never know. That openness-ignorance is the space it takes to be willing to reach out to others. And we've learned a lot about oppressive exploitation of others even if we haven't put all of that knowledge into play yet. Going through the current economic changes is probably helping this generation of young Americans understand exploitation firsthand. (Of course, as always, class has a huge impact and always will.)

We can be sure that radical types of power analyses and Hugo Chavez' sort of sensationalist/oppositional rhetoric is no more helpful than unilateral military endeavors from a British Raj, an American empire, a Russian military, or the Chinese. It's no more helpful than corporate embezzlement of public spaces such as schools, oceans, airwaves, rivers, or land. Right now, we are acting more stupidly as groups than we actually are as individuals or as a whole. That's okay, but not for much longer. Along with the recognition that early adulthood brings a little more reality into idealism, comes the further recognition that wise understanding and application of group dynamics can accompany insightful power analyses. This is true within every culture as gender relations and relationships between generations and classes. If the American economic elite are irresponsible, that is no more helpful than the Saudi economic elite being irresponsible. But because we are dealing in emergent, rather than design, processes even the elite do not have ready-made answers. It's more of a question of how much they'll stick to exploitation of the status quo. Technology and money by themselves never solve social problems. What does it take then? Well, the Boomers took a solid step forward in addressing that question.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation VIII

So what's the bridge between suffering and intimacy? Gurus have stated it already, and God (in His infinite wisdom having decided to show us our potential but rarely show Himself to fools more directly) or Reality already includes the potential. It isn't something divine and excluded from where we're already at. It's so apparent and simple that people sometimes need to be told, "Those who have eyes should see; those with ears should hear." In Zen, "I eat when hungry, sleep when tired."

As I get closer and closer with my girl, different parts of myself that want to remain separate in certain ways keep coming up. Every boundary may eventually need to be considered and possible crossed. It may be that most or all of these boundaries only exist to the extent I hold onto them.

It's fascinating to me how, when I felt the emotional context I was in to be more threatening, these boundaries seemed both more real and more important. As I continue to work on subtlety and resilience in my consciousness within this intimate context, I keep finding myself less willing to pour my light and heat into the boundary-making process. I have less and less of my self and time to commit to hate and avoidance. It's nice for me, it's obvious in some ways because I've got it good. But it becomes more and more apparent on a global stage and a personal one that we are all unavoidably intimate whether we choose or reject that.

The better I become at being able to withdraw my energy and attention from suffering and distance, the more important connection becomes. The energy that right now goes into my boundary-making is also the energy for change and openness and subtle, resilient intimacy. All that is kind of fluffy and nice, but there is a potency too. As I allow boundaries to drop, the subtlety, intimacy, and motivation feed into one another and move closer to oneness.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation VII

The Buddha started with, "Life is suffering." Eventually, we get around to, "Realization is intimacy." It is impossible to get to intimacy without accepting suffering; it is impossible to achieve whatever one genuinely desires to realize without relinquishing entitled distance or difference. If the goal is some sort of loving relationship with other people, love abides no distance. If the goal is something along the lines of thorough-going enlightenment (in some sort of arhat or bodhisattva ideal), the rejection involved in any degree of psychological avoidance will keep one from achieving realization. Muhammad made the point that--in the final analysis--every single action, every single instance of the state of one's soul, will be weighed and measured by a judge who cannot be fooled in the least and who is exactly fair to everyone. Jesus said, first: love the Lord your God with everything in you. Make it one. If you can't do that, if you're more complicated, then I'll say more to direct you to simplicity because it's all very simple. Love your neighbors as you love yourself. Love your father and mother. Love each moment of life as do the lilies of the field and the birds flying over your head or twittering in the branches of a nearby tree. Love--by your actions--unbelievers, too. Love your enemies and care for them to the extent of your ability. It all counts, each moment, so keep the lamp of your soul burning throughout the night. If you can't love the people who are with you--all made in the likeness of God--you cannot pretend to love God. So give it a shot--you'll like it. Love. Otherwise, all of your added on complications, all that weight, will make your life the same as a fat man forced through the eye of a needle. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor. Love. The path is narrow and steep, but you are loved by God. Go ahead and act like that's how it is because that's how it is. Realization is intimacy, my friends.

It begins with an acceptance of suffering and awareness of connection. Just as we can hate our enemies in war, we can hate other versions of this message as if we are entitled to hate--it's dumb, but we have a lot of potential.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation VI

Where were we? Oh yes: after cataclysm, the laundry. Mindfulness, stewardship. In one of my multiculturalism classes, our prof asked what our ethnic-cultural backgrounds were and what values particularly defined them. One of my ancestors was a Hessian mercenary who fought against American revolutionaries on the side of the British colonizers during the American war of independence. He liked what he saw here, stayed, and started a family. (Sometimes it's nice to lose.) I was mostly raised in a Pennsylvania Dutch sort of town, and during my multiculturalism class I was sort of put off by everyone mentioning their backgrounds and all these "nice" values. When my turn came up, I said I was raised in a German-American setting and the priorities included a sense of professionalism in war and industry--organization and pragmatism. (One of my grandfathers was a foreman at Ingersoll-Rand.) And as also important, I added a third value--taking care of the land. (My other grandfather was a farmer/carpenter/architect/etc.) Well, at least we had one nice value included. The professionalism in war seemed important, too. When I was working at the VA, one of my clients had done all sorts of things during war but he had little or no hatred for the enemies of his country. He had all sorts of stuff going on, issues, but he was able to maintain a consistently impressive character throughout. He impressed me on a regular basis--not an easy thing to accomplish. Very different attitude from racism, communitarian violence, etc. War for annihilation, genocide, was foreign to him even though extreme violence was not.

Anyway, stewardship of the land stood out as unavoidably important, and respect for one's enemies or competitors did as well. In dealing with a few veterans as a mental health intern, it was really obvious to me that taking care of your ideas and feelings towards your enemies was an important part of taking care of your ideas and feelings. Big breakthrough, huh? That whole self-interest thing comes back around again and again. Besides being aware of a responsibility as a steward of the planet, I really learned from these clients what it was like to "take care" of one's enemies. Large-scale death was different from hatred. Hatred made PTSD harder to overcome.

The same is true for anyone who fights social injustices. Hatred makes it initially easier to overcome the aversion towards fighting, but it plants a seed that grows in one's consciousness. It infects one's heart and mind. When we allow or support it in ourselves or those around us, it infects those we fight against, true, but it infects us first and lastingly. (Approximately twice as many American soldiers as were killed in Vietnam have taken their own lives in America since Vietnam. Many civilian Americans in the 1970s liked the righteousness expressed in hating the soldiers--their contribution to the infection was death from an entitled distance; different victims, same hate.) After cataclysm, after war, if there are any survivors, we still have to take out the trash, do the laundry, change the babies' diapers. If hatred is a part of your life, it will remain as an infection of the soul until you address it. There are some ways of winning that are not worth the fight. (Did American civilians who hated soldiers "win" when another vet committed suicide?) I don't want Chemical Ali in a leadership position in my country, but neither do we want hatred going into raising our babies. Same hands, same hearts, same minds. (Did American civilians who hated soldiers also plan on punishing the children of veterans who committed suicide by taking their fathers?)

The bleeding hearts like to focus on the children and victims, and that focus is right and good. But our leaders have a responsibility to focus on the victors as well and which spoils of war are gained by them. Why do I not primarily focus on the oppressed and America's enemies in war? We are all the same. Same hands, same hearts, same minds. When the fighting is over, we still have to take care of our families whether those families have less members due to war or not. When we use the military or social fight as a reason to hate, when we use the losses (or victories) as a justification of hate, we make the legacy of those who've died an infection of the soul. We start with love for those who matter to us and we make that love rot. It doesn't matter whether you've won or lost, whether all of your people have survived or not. A legacy of hatred is infection of the soul. When we allow ourselves to be unmindful of soul, it affects others, it affects ourselves.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation V

Women are like geopolitics--unless you only try to manipulate them in very simple ways, they make life complicated. Likewise, a good geopolitical relationship can bring wonderful improvements into your life that could not be imagined without it. So. When we think about the best way to increase global population size, competing nations all rushing towards glorious military and technological conquest drive not only economic growth but also population growth. Like pruning rosebushes so they grow better. If you're willing to accept large-scale mayhem, population can explode following an Industrial Revolution. And the world ecology could support that sort of contest between a certain number of people using certain types of weaponry. Once nuclear weapons and huge population densities arrive on the scene, world ecology has a tougher time keeping up.

That means social relations have to change (assuming that most people in the world are not REALLY looking forward to an environmental or military apocalypse--possibly an inaccurate assumption). Women could probably make the same comment about men and geopolitics from a differently-gendered perspective: social relations have to change. One of the reasons I am big on mindfulness is that mindfulness practice provides a way to appreciate what we have without grabbing for more. Again, that acquisitive mindset is fine and fitting if the world can handle an increasing population. But generally, in an evolutionary sense, most species will increase if there is an abundance of food. (If there is enough food for populations to increase, we can consider that an abundance--not every member of a species needs to be fed in order for populations to increase. We can come back to a discussion on humanistic ethics later if desired.) Pandas are a somewhat more delicate case since bamboo isn't very nutritious, but even pandas face more difficulty from human expansion than from the lack of nutrients in their food supply. There is more bamboo than the current world population of pandas can eat, and humans can produce more food than the current world population needs. Due to human impact on the environment, though, pandas are having a tough time. Due to economics and distribution, not every human will eat. What does large-scale starvation have to do with love?

Well, I am less of a bleeding heart than some, so I'll leave compassionate care of starving millions to others and begin with a selfish perspective on my love life. Hopefully, as we go, we can enlighten that self-interested position. If we can't, there will never be a global organization of our population that consistently supports continuing improvements in the life of the lowest economic classes. Without economically-supported, self-interested motivations, it won't happen. Ever. EVER.

I'm many things, but I'm not a cynic. I don't fear our (singular) population density and I don't fear my self-interest (or yours--there's a little enlightening). Of course, I do accept that people have always starved and that quite a few more generations of our (singular) society will face significant amounts of starvation. I don't like that any more than I like using condoms, but there it is. This generation has produced, is producing, and will continue to produce more kids in certain areas than will be fed whether we produce enough food or not. Many, many, many adults and children have been left behind, are being left behind, and will be left behind in the future. I accept that as how it is but I do not find continuing this situation acceptable.

So not only does my national economy and the availability (or lack) of secure (for example, post office) jobs affect my love life, but the fact that we are over-fishing the ENTIRE worldwide ocean (it's really BIG) to feed our massive population (growth) also affects my...ummm..."romantic" decisions. Because we cannot follow the British Raj in colonial India and enforce sterilizations (didn't work all that well for them anyway), progressive organization of our global society necessarily includes self-interested motivations that are strong and consistent enough to avoid worldwide environmental or social cataclysm due to a continually increasing population. (Unless you believe that the last Imam or Jesus or someone really important WANTS and DEMANDS such cataclysm.) When a species outgrows it's necessary resources, massive starvation, disease (befouling an over-crowded nest), internal conflict (like rats and bears, etc. just eating unwanted young--we use weapons as well as teeth) will eventually prune the population back to a sustainable size. I prefer Occam's Razor (the idea that the simplest explanation is worth considering) over seeing signs of divine planning in people: treating each other like shit, fucking like rabbits, and lacking a sense of organizational vision and personal/political will on a global scale. But if the situation as is strikes you as necessarily miraculous, well, enjoy your imaginational potential; I like stories too.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation IV

We can look at excluding potential in the individual and also interpersonally. Anyone who has looked into the face of hatred can recognize that hating is part of human potential but it may be potential we can live without cultivating. Of course, in order to limit it within our lives, we must recognize that it exists, recognize that there is someone somewhere who believes in hatred. While those folks may believe in hatred, I have yet to find someone who can wholeheartedly want to hate. We can all hate very passionately and convincingly, but it is hard to do wholeheartedly from the beginning to the end of one's life; hatred is a lot of work and so fighting hatred is a lot of work too. I'm not sure it works to fight hatred. This is where Trungpa's comments stand out to me as excellent. He said that anger without hatred is the energy for compassion. Wow, saying something like that takes guts, and living that comment after the Chinese have chased you out of Tibet takes A LOT of integrity. Because the Chinese army doesn't belong in Tibet or Taiwan any more than the Russians belong in the Ukraine, any more than any national army belongs in another nation (err, hum, clear of the throat). But we'll not forget Rwanda any time soon, and Darfur will continue to be a tragedy for a while, and we shouldn't forget appeasement of Nazi Germany and pre-WWII Japan--the Polish haven't, the Chinese haven't, Israelis haven't.

Does using these examples mean I've ignored the BBC's pictures of Iranians protesting an American military presence in the Middle East by comparing Bush to Hitler? No. It means something very clear to me. Progress eventually requires the critique of every single boundary. The political plan for this is simple, although implementing it is a question that will never be resolved. Boundaries in our minds usually take some effort to set up, and then it often takes more effort to change them. Metaphysically and politically, this characteristic can be challenged, criticized in ourselves and/or others, but there are the real-world anatomical processes to consider as unavoidable limits to the speed and nature of progress. We can increase the drama around this or we can look to move towards peace. Depending on what we are like and depending on our situations, we may be more motivated by individual concerns or by concerns for our loved ones. What I find fascinating in social change is just how often people look to prescribe solutions that are a one-shot deal. Just meditate, just be more socialist, just stimulate the economy, just get rid of the undesirables, etc. These are fascinating partially because they are unavoidable. Social progress is more complex than anyone can actually plan for, although anyone can prescribe social changes. If you're in the right position, it's possible to move the entire population of Chechnya or starve 30 million Chinese.

We can distinguish processes which can be planned for by calling them "design processes" and contrasting them to processes which cannot be predicted and controlled--"emergent processes". Because I live in a society with a fairly stable political system and reasonable systems of distribution (because I can count on those things most days), getting up and cooking my eggs for breakfast is a design process. There are others who are not so well off who cannot expect the luxuries I have, others for whom the availability of breakfast must be won each day. Feeding themselves day-to-day is more of an emergent process. Even though I can pretty much count on the local grocery, because of increased worldwide population density and technological advancement, employment is not so much a design process for me; it's more of a mixed process. I have to plan and do what I can, but things will be drastically different in many ways ten years from now. Even the US Post Office, once considered to be one of the most secure employers in the world, may not be around into my old age. Every boundary, every construction, will be changed and might as well be questioned and criticized.

But what do market influences on the US Postal Service have to do with love? Good question; I'm glad you brought it up. It's all connected. While the effects on my family of my uncle's position with the postal service are relevant, I'm going to exclude that topic from this discussion for the sake of brevity. As interesting as Tolkien's Ents are, I'm not one of them. Exclusion is good. The overall market influences on job opportunities and job security obviously have an influential impact on potential romantic interests, so I'll leave my uncle out of this one. But love and economics come together when we look at the motivations behind ethical economic decisions. Besides all the stuff Veblen pointed out about conspicuous consumption and all the ways that can affect "courting", if we assume for the moment (really stretch your imagination here) that I don't have the financial backing to consume very conspicuously, what are my motivations for making ethical--rather than primarily pragmatic/selfish--economic decisions. As Al Pacino in Scarface said, "First you get the money, then you get the power. Then you get the women." Many a poor Romeo is glad to be able to differ. Behind [with/within] every good man is a good woman. We are biologically set up to be good in some ways.

I know that being happy with my girl makes me happy. Treating her well, she treats me well. So far. Everything changes, but we're doing alright so far. She likes that I'm not an asshole--more often than not anyway. I used to have a hard time meditating around other people, but we've become kind of close. Having her around makes me happier AND more peaceful. It's taken some time and effort from both of us, but now, when she's not around, I can really feel that it takes will on my part to meditate. If I can't share the benefits, they don't seem as important. They seem disconnected, floating, metaphysical. When she's around, feeling more intimate with my life and the world is a physical thing, visceral, close. The emotions feed a different tone of meditation. Rather than leading away from problems and dissatisfaction, I can see how patience and equanimity help when we misunderstand each other. And the increased subtlety--in a healthy emotional context--helps me feel more open, responsive, and appreciative.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation III

Is it possible, then, to feel some fundamental/universal human emotion (something very basic and simple) and be true to that feeling or allow its simplicity in a complicated cultural environment? Is our defining capability something like complication or selfishness, or is it possible that complication and selfishness are simply a small area of possibility within a larger creative context? Is it human nature to make life complicated and difficult, or is that simply global cultural history--showing a mere fraction of our potential?

Krishnamurti had a lot to say about simplicity, but I find his writing sometimes hard to read and take in. The same is true with just talking philosophy, so I'll include some story here. When I was working on my master's degree in counseling psychology, we were required to go for 12 hours of personal counseling. We were supposed to choose a therapist and get some counseling so we'd know what it felt like as clients. (My astute friend asked if we also had to take Prozac for six months to see what it is like; we didn't.) I couldn't decide how to find a good therapist, and when I found a therapist, I couldn't figure out what to talk about. Apparently, neither could she. She seemed very able in general, but my various concentration and relaxation techniques were capable of addressing my emotional difficulties at the time. We filled the time with conversation centered on myself, she seemed to give her support to the idea of me becoming a therapist, I paid her for her time, and we finished with very little ostensible benefit to myself. (I was glad to have one more requirement out of the way.) One of the wise women I studied with, when I complained about paying significant fees for minimal returns, asked if I was currently in a relationship. I said no, and she laughed, "You'd be able to figure out what to talk about if you were in a romantic relationship." How true! In some ways, students are so protected, and I further encased myself in my studies by being somewhat antisocial. Of course, relative isolation did seem to fit with studying meditation since the other students didn't seem all that proficient in meditation and most of the meditators I'd met didn't seem all that proficient in psychology and relationships. They often had similar capability in dealing with their emotional problems, so being more subtle or learned concerning applied psychology seemed unnecessary to many of them--they couldn't feel the need for or benefit in more psychology in a way similar to how I couldn't feel much benefit in my own therapy sessions. I'm overgeneralizing, but there seemed to be two major responses to my dilemma of wasting money on poorly timed but required therapy. Psychologists seemed to feel that I simply hadn't found the right therapist, but the woman I saw seemed very able in conventional psychotherapy to me. Meditators seemed to respond that, of course, conventional psychotherapy was not as effective as meditation, so even my passing consistency in meditation practice would naturally be more effective than therapy. Why the different perspectives? It seemed more complicated than need be.

Maybe, in looking for the meditators I actually found, I had gravitated towards those with similar propensities and prejudices to my own. Some forms of meditation (different from my general approach) really emphasize compassion, devotion, emotional awareness and openness, etc. So this yogic method of simply withdrawing one's attention from any bothersome stimuli began to stand out as a very particular technique. Just concentrate on one thing, and nothing else really bothers you. It works in the same way that being alone--compared to being with a woman you can neither live with nor without, compared to being with lots of people jabbering and arguing with one another and making it all worse by trying to be polite (at least, face to face)--is much quieter, which seems much more peaceful. You can be alone in body, physically apart from others, or you can learn to separate your attention from anything you dislike, being attentionally or internally apart. Social separation works; concentration works. And yet, for all of the effectiveness in the methods, something seemed to be missing. (Where's my baby at?)

I certainly was uninterested in becoming more adept at concentrating on being antisocial. But all the drama and hubbub seemed so irrelevant to actually living. I felt like I'd been asking myself just how much I was willing to put up with from other people. Of course, then, in my standard extremist manner, I'd put myself in a program which focused on dealing with very difficult and complex life situations. It all seemed so much more honest when dealing with clients who were truly overwhelmed rather than just the standard sort of social griping--or worse, it's uglier cousin of political opinionating. Sometimes these extremist forms really highlight what we actually want. By complaining about people in general, it allowed me to separate out my idea of myself enough to see how I played into the drama in my own ways. Seeing some of those ways clearly allows one to own those methods and then look for corresponding methods of choosing peace over drama. And having had too much drama makes peace over drama an obvious choice once it can be seen in personally relevant ways. It helps to see how one can change oneself--that is a big part of the relevance. Of course, changing oneself doesn't mean much or last long if others can disregard or override the changes.

So another way of coming at this is to recognize that every human culture has been heavily criticized by some human society. From one perspective or another, every human characteristic has been criticized or discounted by someone. I guess you can't please everyone. What if a perspective could be found which recognizes the value in the characteristics and in the criticism? Ken Wilber has done a nice job on that, even criticizing his own work as he goes (while continuing with the work because it has value as well as imperfections). Given that unfolding perspective, is that actually enough for anyone? Not for me. I will stand with Thich Nhat Hanh and say I want it all. But the perspective helps. It gives us a place from which to ask and answer whether it all needs to be complicated or not. The answer is that the abundance is unavoidable and it does not need to seem complicated in a bad way. (And just as there are many influences that feed into a sense of self, there are many answers that feed into that answer.) The next question is whether or not we want to pursue all human potential or whether, instead, it is better to focus on certain areas. This is where ethics comes in. I believe focus and exclusion of potential is good while exclusion of people is not.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation II

As compared with philosophies such as Hegel's idea of making progress by transcending paradox, I can remember being young enough to feel that there was just love and the desire for love as the entire fundamental basis of human interaction. Sure, this could be an idealization on my part, an inaccurate memory, but the feeling remains as something simpler or more basic than any emotional-intellectual paradox. In the same way, Buddhists talk about how no individual-composite thing is an entity separated from any other, Adi Da talks about the illusion of separation, etc. It's possible, then, that there is no paradox or separation or dichotomy between me and anyone else, between any one ego and another. I believe traditions that emphasize the difficulty or iniquity or "illusion" of ego actually support the illusion as central or important. It's the same as maintaining fear in a devil or evil which one cannot find as actually existing and then using that fear as justification for evil actions against other people. Yes, the iniquity ends up existing, but it is constructed rather than fundamental. We literally "make it up" AND it's very real--not one or the other. The same can be said, and has been said, of ego.

Just as insisting on the reality of evil on a group level (as religion or critical political analysis or whatever) justifies conflict and maintains a feeling of separation, insisting on the importance and limitation of ego maintains intrapsychic conflict--the flipside of conflict between people. Essentially, we end up feeling something like anger or threat and then end up overinterpreting the genuine feeling. When allowed its place but not more, the fundamental feeling ends up being a genuine connection to other people and the world around us. By the time we begin learning language (communications), though, we begin learning interpersonal interpretations of feelings (culture and philosophy). Every single culture has limited interpretations of universal human potentials. And those limitations eventuate in some very interesting--all fundamentally unnecessary--conflicts. While some very motivated individuals have been able to establish that simple fact (that conflict is unnecessary) within themselves, we have only begun to play with communicating this fact.

It's an interesting situation, and we all get to question whether we want to be interested by intrapsychic and interpersonal conflict or whether we can actually be motivated and interested in something else. Eckhart Tolle said this by remarking that people either move towards peace or drama. Interesting, He seems to include a lot of what people generally consider to be emotionally "positive" in his understanding of "drama"--like noticing how closely love and hatred are related. As a global group, we have so far acted as if we prefer drama, partially because we have not agreed to make this question explicit. So far, it's only sort of a global topic in the same way that most individuals consider peace briefly but do not necessarily pursue it. Somewhere along the line, things seem to get very complicated. Well, this complication is our cultural heritage; it's made possible by our evolutionary (metaphysical and/or biological) propensities. In Abraham Maslow's words, "Capabilities (such as the human capability for creativity) are needs." We have amazing capabilities.

Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation

Woke up this morning thinking about subtlety (of consciousness, internal states) and intimacy. The supposed "Western mind" has been proposed to be unfit for, or undirected towards, subtlety of consciousness or realization. The Dalai Lama once remarked that he was unfamiliar with low self-esteem until he began spending more time with Westerners. Since his particular Tibetan lineage and his personal actions seem to value study and science (while many meditative traditions reject "the thinking mind"), this comment has remained stuck in my head from the time I first heard it.

I have yet to hear someone propose that Western culture has poor scientists and no propensity for mathematics and technology, so I have been questioning what subtlety itself is. That Westerners are quite subtle with "objective" material (this could be phrased as "gross awareness" if you don't like the objective/subjective dichotomy) is not at issue. But concerning the internal workings of "subjective" experience, it has been said that Westerners almost inherently REJECT subtlety. (I think this must be the experience of certain sensitive Westerners as well.)

In my own journey, or collection of escapades perhaps, I have avoided trying to involve emotions too centrally in my understanding of psychological happenings because it seems so easy to flip-flop from being avoidant of emotions to overly sentimental. I think this is an important dynamic involving intimacy, self-esteem, and motivation. In order to stay focused on my studies, I have also often avoided my own desire for intimacy. I have met quite a few people who have been extremists in the other direction, fetishizing emotionality or infantilizing their interior life (think of the people who insist on being "inner children" as if they have no "inner adult").

In my experience, it often feels that the greatest obstacle to maintaining subtle states is other people. It's easy enough to judge that comment as a self-protective, egoic defense mechanism, but there is definitely something to it. I know I have been very irritating, at times, to others who are fairly well-equipped to be around other people without letting those others affect them unduly. In other words, I have learned to bring other meditators "down" or out of their sense of peace even when some of those meditators have learned to maintain their state around most other people most of the time. My point in bringing up that I can be pointedly irritating is to say that simply discounting the downer effect other people can have is not a viable option. The injunction to simply work harder on oneself is an ego-based, fearful response that doesn't work for me and has not worked for many others as well. Of course, the contagion of positive and negative emotions is noticeable regardless of one's degree of subtlety or realization; anyone can be "brought down" by the prospect of having to spend time around angry or depressed or cynical folks, so these comments are not just about meditators or realization. (This note ties in with the essay "Nonconceptuality and Beyond".)

Concerning meditation, I started off studying mostly Mahayana Buddhism. One of the major apparent paradoxes in Mahayana is the prioritization of both insight into emptiness and compassion (as seen in the Bodhisattva ideal). Within my own temperament, I was attracted to Mahayana partially because the focus on emptiness also felt like a justification to escape people. I was able to begin working on insight into emptiness or spaciousness, openness, anatta, sunyata, et cetera while holding (at arm's length) this ideal of compassion. I also traveled quite a lot in those eleven years, moving residences approximately every seven months. I've lived in 12 states so far, and Hawaii is the only one I have yet to visit. Moving so often has allowed me to meet a lot of people, make connections, and then move on--a lesson in accepting impermanence. Meeting so many people--and often being able to either stay or leave--has really pointed out just how much most doctrines lack, just how many people most doctrinal answers simply do not work for. And comparing various doctrines to many people has pointed out a great deal of what many or most Americans lack in their personal structure and abilities. Because almost any doctrine, if embraced wholeheartedly, can be very helpful (just think of how many folks you've met who have proclaimed the greatness of some really crazy doctrines). As much as emptiness is a big part of Mahayana, you also find Mahyana teachers saying things such as, "Realization is intimacy." So there is no necessary paradox between emptiness and compassion. Very confusing at first. (More to come in a separate post.)

Nonconceptuality and Beyond

New essay: Nonconceptuality and Beyond

A Statement on Religion

I love interacting with such a wide variety of folks--so much stands out as apparent that can be hard to notice without diversity. As our major social institutions attempt to adjust to the new global context, we end up questioning the importance, forms, and purpose(s) of government, religion, family, etc. For a long time, I've wondered about the basic function of religion as a human phenomenon. I've rarely been interested in separatist/relativistic, ethnic-based variations of this human thing, but there are some fascinating potentials that stand out very clearly by comparing all these variations.

Adi Da (definitely a strange and fascinating cat) points out that the avoidance of unconditional relationship is the characteristic cause and condition of what he calls "egoic" activity. In comparison to this, most of us can get at least a provisional grasp on the idea, experience, and perhaps reality of unconditional connection, of always-already unqualified and primary relatedness. I first ran into the denial of this relatedness as a four or five year-old in Sunday school on the day they taught us about original sin and how Jesus took the suffering and iniquity of the entire world upon himself. Like others, something in me ran counter to accepting this statement. I felt and had felt more love in my life than what that statement or perspective seemed to allow.

DT Suzuki has said that all religions have in common the affirmation or awareness of tathata (suchness) as a certain historical base and constant refuge. While exoteric forms of religion may get away from suchness, most religions' scriptures very clearly state something along the lines of Christ's injunction to live as the lilies of the field, to be "as a child" in relation to God. For a long time, I have questioned the purpose of religion rather than wondering much about the differences between religions. Difference doesn't bother me much, but stupidity often does.

If religion has commonality in tathata, then what is its worldwide purpose? In the face of history and future changes in society, what? Tathata is so self-obvious and noncontradictory, that there is little to be said on that topic (at least from where I stand). But the nonseparation that mindful awareness of tathata makes apparent may be worth remarking. I believe that there is a difference between the basis of something and its possible purpose(s). Even when a base may be obvious or explicit, purpose in a changing environment may be occluded or may simply need to adapt. I believe the global purpose of religion (worldwide) has not really changed, but it has been obscured (or often-occluded).

While this purpose has been stated in many ways, there are rare moments when we grasp this as individuals in a very tangible sense, and there are rare individuals who grasp this continuously or nearly continuously. I believe it is and has been the purpose of religion to state an affirmation of the assumption of the basic and indisputable nonseparation of consciousness or reality or beings-as/within-tathata.

In this, I mean assumption in the same sense that we can test and affirm gravity. Once it is tested sufficiently (for one's taste or purposes), it can be assumed. Stated assumptions may always be tested again if someone raises sufficient question or challenge.

When churches--and even particular ethnic/regional/separatist religions--lose their sense of contextualization within global society and religion as a whole, they confuse a sense of purpose, leading into various corruptions, misdirections, and cultic perversions (such as an overly sentimental focus on "love" or an overly righteous/arrogant focus on laws or some perverse and petty form of "justice"). In the same way that any incorporated social group loses its cohesion and purpose and clarity when it loses its focus, many religious groups have run amok due to their loss of focus. While they often blame this loss on the changing times or other people, every supposedly external description has a corresponding internal description. In other words, they may choose to focus on external circumstances but these external circumstances have only made internal weaknesses apparent (rather than allowing these weaknesses to remain hidden).

The purpose of religion in the worldwide history and current global society of humans is to affirm the assumption of nonseparation.

Without a clear focus on this purpose, we lose a sense of connection to an unassailable basis. When we lose that sense without losing that connection which cannot actually be lost, we end up living in a very confusing world--the product of a limited mind-perspective--rather than living in a self-obviously abundant world.