New to this Blog? Start Here!
Navigation
Recent comments
- Tue, 01/06/2009 - 2:28amby
- Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:34amby
- Sat, 12/20/2008 - 8:08pmby
- Fri, 12/19/2008 - 11:42pmby
- Fri, 12/05/2008 - 10:32pmby
- Sun, 11/30/2008 - 9:48pmby
Flight
James, I have been staring at your two photographs on and off all day. The first one makes me just want to laugh and the second setting me dreaming about a new adventure.
A Letter (that I sent) to Thomas Friedman
Hey Thomas,
I love your Op-Ed column -- you tell it straight. Today I found one little thing in "The Great Iceland Meltdown" to comment on, and thought it fit to send word. You say, "And therein lies the central truth of globalization today: We're all connected and nobody is in charge." In a sense, this truth cannot be denied.
But... in a more important sense, you are wrong: we are all in charge. That is the piece that is most important of all. One may then respond, "But someone in LA screws up, someone in Iceland screws up, and suddenly there are less cops on my city's streets. What did I do wrong?" But this view is the old-world view, and it is what is necessarily superseded by a new perspective found in your statement, "we are all connected." This is no truer now than it has always been, only now it is true on a much more explicit plane; now we have the opportunity to begin looking from a higher perspective, from which we recognize that we are all connected and that, most importantly, we are each in charge.
In the old world view, I am only in charge of myself and my own actions, and the rest of the world is pitted against me. In the new view, I am in charge of all of it, and nothing is pitted against me. I can hold myself responsible, without blaming myself; and I can hold you responsible, without judging you. We are beginning the transition to the age of subtlety -- "with us or against us" just doesn't cut it anymore.
Thanks for the thoughtful words each week.
-James
JAMES, QUESTION ON YOUR POST TO FRIEDMAN
James, first of all, I really appreciate you including us in your correspondences and posts on other blogs. Secondly, I loved this post because it brings together what interests me, namely, the integration of disciplines (e.g.,philosophical, psychological and – in this case—political). In this post, you brought up a key factor in understanding the current debacle in world financial systems, what I have been arguing is a byproduct of a paradigm shift in global consciousness: the factor is interconnectedness or, in the current travesty, the failure to consciously identify and create a global scaffolding for interconnectedness. What we seem to have – as Friedman pointed out in his article – is a dissociated worldview naming it globalization but operating on fractured systems and devoid of the fundamental ethicality that globalization requires if it will work. The antithesis of ethicality, in this case, is greed and ignorance.
With that said, it seems as if Friedman actually did answer his own question (with “We are all partners now?). Friedman continues after “And therein lies the central truth of globalization today: We're all connected and nobody is in charge" (italics mine):
“Globalization giveth — it was this democratization of finance that helped to power the global growth that lifted so many in India, China and Brazil out of poverty in recent decades. Globalization now taketh away — it was this democratization of finance that enabled the U.S. to infect the rest of the world with its toxic mortgages. And now, we have to hope, that globalization will saveth.
The real and sustained bailout from the crisis will happen when the strong companies buy the weak ones — on a global basis. It’s starting. Last week, Credit Suisse declined a Swiss government bailout and instead raised fresh capital from Qatar, the Olayan family of Saudi Arabia and Israel’s Koor Industries. Japan’s Mitsubishi bank bought a stake in Morgan Stanley, possibly rescuing it from bankruptcy and preventing an even steeper decline in the Dow. And Spain’s Banco Santander, which was spared from the worst of this credit crisis by Spain’s conservative banking regulations, is purchasing America’s Sovereign Bankcorp.
I suspect we will soon see the same happening in industry. And, once the smoke clears, I suspect we will find ourselves living in a world of globalization on steroids — a world in which key global economies are more intimately tied together than ever before.
It will be a world in which America will not be able to scratch its ear, let alone roll over in bed, without thinking about the impact on other countries and economies. And it will be a world in which multilateral diplomacy and regulation will no longer be a choice. It will be a reality and a necessity. We are all partners now.”
Back to you, James. Are you suggesting that Friedman isn’t acknowledging the need for this level of awareness (interconnectedness of all beings), or merely that he didn’t take it far enough?
friedman
"Are you suggesting that Friedman isn’t acknowledging the need for this level of awareness (interconnectedness of all beings), or merely that he didn’t take it far enough?"
i think neither characterization quite fits my critique. but it is more the case, i think, that he does not acknowledge it. now, if he had posited a question and answered it, as you suggest, perhaps i'd have a slightly different take (though not too different). as is, he makes a statement, "we're all connected and nobody is in charge," and then another one, "we are all partners now." i don't get the sense that he means these to be terribly different or in tension with one another. he's making slightly different claims, but i believe "we are all partners" and "we're all connected and nobody is in charge" means essentially the same thing in the context of "globalized economy."
he is acknowledging the need for this level of awareness sort of. when he continues to insist that this is a product of the globalization of the economy, and therefore something utterly new, he is missing the point. that is what i wished to focus on. the difference is that now we have a very concrete way to point to interconnectedness, and he acknowledges that, in that concrete sense, we need to recognize the interconnectedness of the world. but he only asserts that we need this level of awareness insofar as the effects of "globalization" are concerned. he does not acknowledge, say, that my well-being is inseparable from the well-being of others.
he recognizes the opportunity this catasrophe is, but unfortunately only from the superficial level from which we have been operating.
BACK TO YOU, JAMES, ON FRIEDMAN
"It will be a world in which America will not be able to scratch its ear, let alone roll over in bed, without thinking about the impact on other countries and economies. And it will be a world in which multilateral diplomacy and regulation will no longer be a choice. It will be a reality and a necessity. We are all partners now.”
"i don't get the sense that he means these to be terribly different or in tension with one another. he's making slightly different claims, but i believe "we are all partners" and "we're all connected and nobody is in charge" means essentially the same thing in the context of "globalized economy.""
It's interesting, I'm reading Friedman differently here and I'm wondering if it's because he is implying that America will have to (future tense) acknowledge as opposed to the desire and willingness to acknowledge and engage in a more interconnected global system, replete with a much vaunted ethicality (he says sarcastically). Your thoughts?
THIS MORNING'S COLIN POWELL ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA
“Powell said a major part of his decision to turn his back on his own party was his conclusion that Obama was the better option to repair frayed U.S. relations with allies overseas.
“This is the time for outreach,” Powell said, saying the next president would have to “reach out and show the world there is a new administration that is willing to reach out.”
McCain would be a good president, Powell said, but Obama is “a transformational figure” who would be an “exceptional” leader.
“I truly believe that at this point in America’s history we need a president who will not just continue ... basically the policies we have followed in recent years,” he said. “We need a president with transformational qualities.”
Speaking of a new (worldcentric) worldview, this morning Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Obama. If you read carefully, Powell and others who are endorsing Obama, point to Obama’s worldcentric wisdom; transformational because, as James intimated in his post, a shift is required in our foundational awareness as a global people, national barriers giving way to boundaries of pluralistic, diverse and fluid identities replete with an integrated ethicality. Lincoln, Kennedy and Martin Luther King were leaders of this type. Obama stands beside them.
THE PALIN DEFECT
"The Bradley Effect thus behind us, the legacy of the 2008 presidential election would be what I call the "Palin Defect." I believe that the majority of independent swing voters who are on the fence about whether to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama will ultimately choose Obama in the voting booth because of Sarah Palin. They will not be able to shake their nagging feeling that Palin is just completely unqualified to be the vice president; that her views and campaigning style are divisive, her knowledge base is laughable and she is downright dangerous for our country. While she may possess style and be able to deliver a performance, she has negligible substance -- something we just cannot afford to live without in these complex times."
-- Fred Goldring
some do not recognize, at
some do not recognize, at least not consciously, what you show Powell to describe in Obama. some only recognize it latently, drudging up some explanation for their attraction to him. some don't see it at all, and throw off the enthusiastic support he's inspired to eloquence (as McCain angrily described Obama in the 3rd debate) and mere performance. many just can't take a politician at his word, or see through his words to the worldview pointed to by them. it's understandable. but the difference between Obama and Palin, between Obama and McCain -- besides the obvious policy differences -- really is just this way of seeing the world. McCain and Palin share the tragically (really, tragically) limited worldview of our still-current president. Obama is a sign that a more integrative/ecological way of seeing/thinking is emerging on the big scale we really need. and the destruction that has opened the door for Obama has opened the door also for a big shift, if only a minor one at first, to occur. this sort of feeling is why i have felt calm and confident over the last few weeks, as opposed to terrified and panicked in the weeks after Palin's nomination. i've sensed the shifting tide. we'll see soon what comes of it in the short term.
I Love Colin Powell
"On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven week period [re. financial crisis of country] and he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this, picking a vice president that I think is ready to be president on day one and also, not just in jumping in and changing everyday but showing intellectual vigor. I think he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.
I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks the approach of the Republican party and Mr McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama at the same time has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines. Ethinc lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about 'all villages have values, all towns have values,' not just 'small towns have values.'
...
I am also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say and it is permitted to be said, such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he is a Christian, he has always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No, that's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7 year old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop this suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America...."
I am struck again and again by the clarity of Powell's speech, by his remarkable language. It reminds me a bit of a college/grad school recommendation a professor might write for a student. Keeping in mind that a professor knows she/he is writing to an audience that cares about "intellectual curiosity", "depth of knowledge" and "intellectual vigor." Powell just spoke UP to our country! And raised the collective IQ a little. I swear he did.
It also felt like he just woke up a dying patient by bringing this much needed water to her parched lips... "intellectual curiosity".. !!! ... ahhh, life-saving witness.
I believe Powell is sincere and I believe he is accurate, but there is something else that we cannot mistake which is that to value these qualities in a man means to value them in all people. He just gave US a great gift, because I have not heard language like this spoken in our country in a very very long time.
just hello
Am reading, but quiet these days. Going to be traveling for the next week, but will check in just to send some hugs and maybe a response or two.
SAY IT LOUD, I’M BLACK AND I’M* VOTING FOR WHOM?
*For you youngins, "Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud" is a funk song written and recorded by James Brown in 1968 and is noted as one of the most popular "black power" anthems of the 1960s. So, what’s my point? I was having a conversation today with one of my friends -- who happens to be African American – about the meaning of this very unprecedented 2008 election for president of the United States. I spell it out in this way because it invokes for me this recent memory of Obama Barrack stepping onto the stage and saying, “With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for presidency of the United States.” [see video]. I cried at that moment a very profound cry, not merely because the first black individual was nominated for president of the United States, but because this single moment, in my mind, redeemed and restored the very humanity that was taken away from me as a child and American citizen who grew up witnessing the political and social sanctioning of hatred of a group of people because of their race. The images are still before my eyes of human beings being knocked down by water hoses, attacked by German Shephards (!!!!), beaten and lynched because of the color of their skin. But, interestingly, the most powerful and disturbing image was of two water fountains, side by side, a sign above one reading “Colored”. So deep into the fundamental linguistic constructs that order reality, these signs represented a public sanctioning of hatred and ensured that the categorizing and demonizing of difference was to pervade the marrow of everyone’s psyche. But, even as a young boy using the word nigger before I even new what it was, I felt something deeply wrong, deeply disturbing, if not only for the emotional reaction it evoked in others. There is an energy around language that shapes consciousness and reifies images, ideas, and feelings into beliefs and ultimately action. The energy around the word nigger and other monikers, more than just objectifies, it vilifies and shapes hatred into an indisputable ontology of existence that ironically projects fear, not for the purpose of eradication like a disease (which Blacks were often associated with), but for the sustainability of security associated with superiority and domination. For if I completely destroy you, there will be no one left to contain my fear and preserve my sense of wholeness (psychological and existential integrity). This collective sociopathy and narcissism , predicated on a perpetuated dissociation, was the psychological foundation from which this nation’s material abundance was nourished.
So, back to my talk with my friend. I asked him to consider what this election means particularly for a black person who has inherited the most extreme forms of racism and persecution, not as a voting Democrat, but as a voting Republican. “Here I am, a republican Black in clear disagreement with Obama’s policies but I see in this election, for my fellow Black Americans, perhaps the greatest opportunity ever to symbolically (and literally) open what was once completely foreclosed: the mitigation of racism against Blacks”. Yes, for me, I see it as a mitigation of racism in general, but I am not a Black American who can identify with the Black experience (in the same way I cannot identify with being a woman or being gay, etc.). What to do? I was not seeking an answer from my friend, I was asking him to just hold the question, and I was excited by the fact that many particularly Republican Black Americans will have the opportunity to experience the dilemma this election will engender.
I then shared with my friend my own feelings and thoughts about the election having grown up with the shame and cancer of racism and the fear it engendered. Can one moment in time wipe out centuries of devastation and genocide? Of course not, but it is a sign, a signifying moment reflecting a change in the collective consciousness and healing of a nation heretofore deeply split, wounded and arrested in its development. This election represents a slowly emerging paradigmatic shift in the way we, as a collective consciousness, see and the way we know how to see the world of diversity and pluralism, as a world of integrally interconnected beings who are in reality, the same. Though there is distinction and uniquity, there is no real difference and it is this integral vision that I have worded over in that sign in my mind that read “Colored.” It now reads “Forgiveness.”
I just wanted to comment on your post Om about Barack
Obama's historic presidential candidacy. It's a beautiful thing when we can go from referring to someone as the "black" candidate to the candidate who "happens" to be black. Obama represents the ongoing collective cultural and psychological "metamorphosis" that our country has undergone within the past several decades.
We have gone from ostricizing blacks because of the way they walk, talk, dance, etc. to understanding and embracing their customs. Our society tends to mock that which is not understood. I think we use humor to diffuse the fear we have of ideas that challenge the status quo. It's a sort of mental self-preservation. We trust and defend what we know and do to a fault. How ironic it is that what we now know is based on challenges to the status quo, or what we once knew in the first place. Self-awareness is powerful and inclusive to all those who sympathize with our human condition. Ignorance is weak and exclusive to those who have no compassion for others and for themselves ultimately.
Obama's appeal is that he represents inclusiveness, being the child of white and black parents. He also represents our human condition striving to understand humanity.
my stream-of-consciousness thoughts
what i'm focusing on here is that he seems to be saying that we only need recognize the interconnectedness insofar as our economies now work that way -- and therefore if i'm stupid over here, it will badly effect someone in London because our economies work in sync with one another's. i get the sense from friedman that he doesn't suppose "interconnectedness" is a term that was applicable before globalization. now America, the nation, has to recognize its effect on the rest of the world. it's amazing to think that up until now America has gotten away with failing to recognize this, considering its profound and apparent impact on the rest of the world. the point i want to draw is that interconnectedness was already the nature of things, and that if we only take this as a reality in the sense of the state of the global economy, we may very easily continue to isolate ourselves in every way we can manage, and to ignore the basic nature of reality as interconnected. it is an opening to the nature of reality as interconnected that, as far as my still-limited experience tells me, opens up humanity to the fullest expressions of compassion. there is something so much more convincing to me about a compassion rooted in direct experience of the nature of reality than a compassion rooted in, say, an (imposed) external ethical law, or an intellectual positing, etc, etc. those compassions are great, but still mired by attachment, judgment, ignorance... self-centeredness. Friedman's interconnectedness is an interconnectedness understood not through spiritual understanding, but through self-centered, pragmatic intellectual plotting -- we thought we could only concern ourselves with ourselves, but now it's clear we are playing with others and have to recognize our relationship with them if we are to get the toys we wanted, and so we will "recognize" our relationship as one of interconnectedness. this really is a step forward, but i get the sense we as a country and as a world have taken many such steps forward without really taking any steps forward. but we've been preparing for a big step forward, which many of us as individual (yet intimately interconnected w/ all else) streams of consciousness, so to speak (since i have no better notion yet), have been in the process of making for many lives now. really the point of my letter to Friedman was to say, if anything: we both know you are talking about the economy; do you know that you are also talking about... ?
CHICKEN OR THE EGG: RESPONSE TO JAMES' STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS
“if we only take this as a reality in the sense of the state of the global economy, we may very easily continue to isolate ourselves in every way we can manage, and to ignore the basic nature of reality as interconnected.”
Does a more integral vision or ethos occur as a result of a failed system, or does a system change its paradigm as a result of a more integral worldview? This question may appear glib or simple but in fact it is a very complex glimpse into the nature of change from a developmental perspective. In the individual, maturation and development are deeply interactive processes with change (growth) dependent on a myriad of causes and conditions, from genetics to nutrition to learning to emotional nourishment. What is obvious is that the worldviews we speak of are comprised of individual ideas the translated actions of which construct the systems of society, government, economies, etc. In ways, these systems and the worldviews they reflect are analogous to the increased complexity of a child’s intellectual productions vis-à-vis her development which, as we said, is dependent upon her interaction with the social world. In simple language, we learn through mistakes but, as James is intimating, we only learn if we have the capacity to learn. The process itself is not linear but more like a spiral and would explain James’ observation that “this really is a step forward, but i get the sense we as a country and as a world have taken many such steps forward without really taking any steps forward. but we've been preparing for a big step forward, which many of us as individual (yet intimately interconnected w/ all else) streams of consciousness, so to speak (since i have no better notion yet), have been in the process of making for many lives now.”
Generalizing this to populations, what we are really talking about here is a calculus of change based on a minority of individuals (of real influence, e.g., political, corporate, academic) who have developed intellectually and ethically enough to understand (wisdom) and adopt (compassion) more integral ways (e.g., interconnectedness) of guiding civilization on its course through time. Whether Friedman is one of these individuals or not, I don’t know but I agree with his assessment in its contextual formulation. If his vision is “bigger,” that is, more inclusive, then James’ statement below will be answered with a ya.
“really the point of my letter to Friedman was to say, if anything: we both know you are talking about the economy; do you know that you are also talking about... ?”
FROM `CHRISTIANITY TODAY’ REVIEW OF `RELIGULOUS’
Let's face it: most documentaries these days don't bother to document anything in an objective, journalistic sense. We can thank Michael Moore for re-conceiving the documentary film as something akin to a sensationalistic, cinematic op-ed piece. If you have something you hate, or something you want to humiliate in as public a way as possible, make a documentary! And this is precisely what Bill Maher does in his new anti-religion film, Religulous.
Maher, who grew up Catholic (with a Jewish mother), loathes religion. This film doesn't make it clear why he hates it so, aside from some comments about how Catholicism "wasn't relevant" to his life as a child. But hate it he does. Religulous is Maher's attempt to sell the idea that religions are the most dangerous threat facing mankind, that "religion must die for mankind to live."
Maher spends the film traveling all over the world, along with Borat director Larry Charles and a small camera crew proficient in the art of "sabotage interview." The first half of the film is mostly focused on evangelical Christians, how they believe in things like a 5,000-year-old earth, etc. Maher takes a trip to the Creation Museum in Hebron, Kentucky, where he interviews creationism guru Ken Ham against the backdrop of animatronic dinosaurs with saddles (for humans to ride on). And he also interviews young-earth evangelical Mark Pryor, a democratic senator from Arkansas who creates some of the funniest moments of the film. To be fair, Maher also interviews Christian evolutionist Francis Collins, but he too comes out looking a bit buffoonish.
Ever the equal-opportunity atheist, Maher spends the second half of the film undermining religions and cults of every shape and size. He goes to Utah and skewers Mormonism, interviews Puerto Rican cult leader Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda (who claims to be the Antichrist), and even gets high with a leader of a religion based around marijuana. He goes to the Vatican and interviews some crazy Catholic priest, and Jerusalem to deconstruct Judaism and Islam. Maher is particularly hard on Islam, offering somewhat surprising pronouncements about the inherent violence and barbarism of that most touchy of all world religions. At moments like these, Maher might actually find allies in conservative Christian circles.
All along the journey, Maher and Charles jazz up the images with achingly sardonic voiceovers and music, and some very clever quick-cut editing (inserting 2 seconds of Charlton Heston-as-Moses at opportune moments, for example). It's stylishly presented, to be sure, but for all its panache, Religulous is ultimately a very predictable movie. It borrows from the usual suspects (Michael Moore, Morgan Spurlock) in formatting the agitprop docu-comedy template for this particular crusade, and we can almost see the punchlines coming as a result.
What do you expect to happen when Maher stops at a truck-stop chapel in North Carolina to quiz long-haul truckers about biblical inconsistencies? What else but exploitative ridiculousness can result when Bill "religion is too easy" Maher spends a day in Florida's Holy Land Experience—where the Passion of the Christ is reenacted with cheap props while a Sandi Patty wannabe sings "Via Dolorosa"?
Honestly, it's not the hardest thing in the world to make a religion look silly when you only focus on the kitschiest, most grimace-inducing practitioners of it. Sure, we have to own up to these unfortunate (but fortunately fringe) elements within our ranks, but Maher shores up little credibility for his cause by refusing to talk with any opponent with an ounce of nuance of theological rigor.
He also loses credibility by sheer fact that he is Bill Maher—an ardently liberal, slightly greasy elitist with a penchant for condescension. Maher doesn't help break the "out of touch liberal" stereotype when he smokes pot on camera, for instance. And on Larry King Live in August, Maher exposed his amoral approach to life when he defended John Edwards' extramarital affair, saying, "people like new; you can't stop human nature." This "anything goes" view of adultery is doubtless not an opinion many people share with Maher.
Maher's biggest problem with this movie is not that it is reckless or condescending (which it is), but that it espouses a point of view that, quite simply, is not shared by many people in the world. Maher's ideology has no room for the miraculous or supernatural. Such things are all hocus pocus to him and cannot be believed by anyone with a brain. Faith of any kind (i.e., believing in something that can't be proved) "makes a virtue out of not thinking," according to Maher. Right there he loses about 98 percent of the world's population.
Still, Maher certainly isn't timid. He's about as aggressive as anyone can be in espousing an opinion. This becomes evident in the final five minutes of Religulous, when the tone of the film gets deadly serious and Maher presents his closing monologue. Here, he summarizes the argument: religions are dangerous because they make people think they know the answers, even when doubt is the only rational approach to life. Maher ends by calling on all anti-religionists (apparently he thinks there are huge numbers of them in hiding) to quit being timid and take up the cause of shutting down religion in the world. Otherwise, the religion-caused apocalypse will surely be imminent.
What nuance Maher had up till then is lost in this final segment of alarmist hysteria, which reminded me of LBJ's famous "Daisy Girl" ad during the 1964 presidential election. It's a cheap shot scare tactic—somewhere between An Inconvenient Truth and Future Shock—and it conveniently ignores certain facts about history, namely that religion has been the source of untold good in the world. Maher's thesis that all things evil and destructive are a result of religious delusion simply does not hold water historically. Countless atheistic regimes have bred violence and calamity in the world, totally outside of any religious motivation. Religion has far from a perfect record, but then again, nothing has a perfect record.
Religulous is best seen as a comedy (and there are many funny moments) and not as a serious or measured examination of anything. It's a movie meant to make religious people look stupid, to "prove" that religious belief and intelligence are mutually exclusive. If you are already prone to believe that, then this movie is for you. For everyone else, Religulous is a trifling and shoddy tirade that, ultimately, is not much of a threat.
response to review
see, here's a review by someone whose opinion i know is uninteresting to me. i am frustrated when someone says, in the same review, that Maher espouses doubt as the only way and also calls him an "atheist." he doesn't realize that those two things don't work together?
it's a funny review -- his arguments against Maher are very familiar to me, because i've seen people on Maher's show give the same arguments, such as the, "but religions have done so much good, too," argument. perhaps someday someone will find a way of bridging these two poles -- at the moment they're not actually discussing anything. those sorts of arguments are so obvious, doesn't anyone think to themselves -- before giving in to the defensiveness --, "perhaps there are different grounds upon which to debate this"? i suppose not. it's interesting to see the complaint about only putting buffoons on camera, and how easy that makes it to make fun of religion. usually i have a problem with something like that... but there are a few issues with that criticism this time around. the point is not to find a religion's elite thinkers, but to find those ordinary buffoons walking around preaching or what-have-you. who cares about those happy few who have more nuanced understandings of this stuff? if you're worried about them, i think you're missing Maher's point -- which one doesn't have to commit to as he does in order to appreciate, naturally.
anyway, that said: i'm looking forward to seeing it :P
HOUSE IS NOT A HOME: INSIDE THE DREAM
PART I
Nowhere, Beloved, will world be but within us. Our life
passes in transformation. And the external
shrinks into less and less. Where once an enduring house was,
now a cerebral structure crosses our path, completely
belonging to the realm of concepts, as though it
still stood in the brain.
-- Rilke Seventh Duino Elegy
I don’t know if I mentioned, but I love dreams. People must think I’m strange because I ask people about their dreams all day long. You would think I’m a shrink. But, I can’t help myself; I enter into this very unique world as if in a… well, dream. I often find myself calling dreams poems and vice versa. I don’t think it’s a coincidence, this withinwarding of mine opening up to incommensurate beauty and mystery and, ultimately, meaning. Meaning. That word again.
The dream speaks to (and of) inner language, the insideness of consciousness that, ultimately, has neither an in nor an out. No temporality, no spatiality and yet, the dream mimics in a kaleidoscopic way the world our consciousnesses together and separately constructs (with)in time and space. And it is how the dream unfolds that points to and guides us to(ward) what our conscious waking life refuses to fully reveal: our subjectivity and the freedom from suffering it holds.
Despite the content and reams of images the dream proffers, it is the emotional resonance we seek, the feeling(s) the dream evokes. Only through our emotional centers – and the dream will show us how – will the integrity of our personal evolution lift us out of the perils of estrangement and isolation.
Yesterday, one of my friends shared a most interesting dream. What made the dream particularly interesting was its dimensionality, the way it played with reflexivity to reveal mind’s innate relativity; that is, that it constructs reality as opposed to finding or discovering it (the dream’s “technique” was a dream-within-a-dream). It also reflects mind’s depth and the deep-rootedness of conflict. My friend, the dreamer, from what he shares, in general is attempting to move through early trauma the consequences of which, to a large degree, left him emotionally split off from his experiences (which simply means isolated). What this means now is, as he would describe it, becoming more integrated. And indeed, this dream depicts, imagistically, meaningfully, and I would even say, syntactically, a narrative theme of which is integration. Here’s an excerpt:
He is walking through a “creepy” town with a beautiful woman (who, in reality, is an actress). They are going to see a show in some building so they decide to get an early dinner. They are at a table. The actress eats first and when she finishes, her body ends up in her soup bowl. Her entire body. She morphs into a clay-like dried up piece of flesh, and my friend scoops her body into his own soup bowl, adds water, and eats. Importantly, it feels like a “ritualized” act and, as I am to find out later, this scene is actually a dream-within-a-dream which he shares again with this woman in the basement of his mother’s house.
In just this snippet, we can see the attempt at integration my friend conveyed earlier. There is at once a separation and interdependence, moving from objectification through incorporation towards integration. The object of idealization (actress) is “taken in” as nourishment in a ritualized way to emphasize the dreamer’s symbolic commitment to his purpose, which is healing and intimacy. Interestingly, this particular actress is not well-known to the dreamer which gives her role more flexibility and range; that is, as a kind of blank screen, the dreamer can infuse more of himself in her.
My friend pointed out how coherent the dream felt, how strongly it resonated and how he felt almost more empowered because of its (or his) clarity. And clarity and understanding is the point. I analyze my own dreams and consider them as a vital part of my practice, along with meditation. The mind is cunning and it easily slips into old patterns. The dream – what I call dreamwork – is an amazing vehicle for cultivating self-awareness.
Does anyone have any dreams they’d like to share? Or share dream experiences that have felt transformative?
MORE THOUGHTS ON THE DREAM
Entering the dream narrative is strikingly similar to the initial psychotic state of schizophrenia, at the crucial moment when the schizophrenic moves away from the social, consensual world. For the schizophrenic and dreamer, the world in its usual meanings dissolves and loses cohesion and coherence. There is a new and overwhelming sense of significance but it is an ineffable specificity. At once, everything is both familiar and somehow different. My friend’s dream had this feeling: the walking through a creepy town toward a definite destination with an actress, he walking a few feet behind her; and then sitting down in a restaurant, proceeding to eat, and when she morphs into a ball of some substance, clay-like, he scoops her into his bowl of soup (in a ritualized manner), adds water and eats her. The surrealism of this scene is heavily glossed with cultural elements and tropes that transpose the cannabilistic to pure symbol. For the schizophrenic, the disordered perceptual field horrifyingly fraught with delusions and hallucinations is mere grist for the dreamer’s creative mode of expression, which is replicated and can be found on a large scale in artistic productions and movements (I’m thinking of Surrealism and Formalism, for example).
This is the paradoxicality of dreamworld experience. Though meaning and coherence are suspended, it is only the standard definitions that images and narrative defy. This is where the schizophrenic and dreamer part. The dreamer will find behind her images and narrative a more coherent and uniquely personal meaning. We might say that the laws of natural occurrence or functionality are manipulated to serve the dreamer’s ineluctable unconscious project: to heal and grow (evolve!).
Because it cannot be found in conventional meaning (which is externally and object oriented), in the dream (much like art) language struggles to reach beyond its own horizons of description. I ask, Why do we need to manipulate language if not to create idiomatic forms that collective or consensual signification cannot? In all my writing, I consistently argue for a motivational and evolutionary perspective the conviction of which is this: all action, whether behavioral or speech, is governed by the desire to grow vis-à-vis creating relational (concrete and abstract) ties. And when language fails, the creative pulse continues to push forward, as art and science, for example, has shown. No, it is not a linear movement, and pathological degenerative forms of this evolutionary process can be seen everywhere (eg, destruction of communal bonds and the environment). But, this is part of the evolutionary struggle.
Om question about dream thread
Om when you said:
----
This is the paradoxicality of dreamworld experience. Though meaning and coherence are suspended, it is only the standard definitions that images and narrative defy. This is where the schizophrenic and dreamer part. The dreamer will find behind her images and narrative a more coherent and uniquely personal meaning. We might say that the laws of natural occurrence or functionality are manipulated to serve the dreamer’s ineluctable unconscious project: to heal and grow (evolve!).
Because it cannot be found in conventional meaning (which is externally and object oriented), in the dream (much like art) language struggles to reach beyond its own horizons of description. I ask, Why do we need to manipulate language if not to create idiomatic forms that collective or consensual signification cannot? In all my writing, I consistently argue for a motivational and evolutionary perspective the conviction of which is this: all action, whether behavioral or speech, is governed by the desire to grow vis-à-vis creating relational (concrete and abstract) ties. And when language fails, the creative pulse continues to push forward, as art and science, for example, has shown.
----
I am not sure I am getting what you are saying about dreams. Are you suggesting (bold) that dreams are an unconscious artistic outpouring to create meanings that the dreamer cannot otherwise create as a desire for healing and growth?
MEGAN, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT DREAMS
"I am not sure I am getting what you are saying about dreams. Are you suggesting (bold) that dreams are an unconscious artistic outpouring to create meanings that the dreamer cannot otherwise create as a desire for healing and growth?"
This is exactly what I meant, I couldn't have said it better :) The only thing I would modify is: "to create meanings that the dreamer has greater difficulty creating as a desire for healing and growth in conscious waking life."
Om Another question about dreams
I am wondering about intention- where the line between conscious and unconscious lies in regards to dreams. From a functional stand point we dream every night, correct? I’m not saying this means we recall every dream every night, I myself have to remind myself if I cease from remembering my dreams sometimes before going to bed that I will remember my dreams. Is there opportunity for healing and growth in every dream even when the dreamer does not have a desire towards healing and growth in conscious waking life?
MEGAN, YOUR QUESTION ON DREAMS
“Is there opportunity for healing and growth in every dream even when the dreamer does not have a desire towards healing and growth in conscious waking life?”
Megan, another excellent question. Thank you. My conviction is that “desire,” as intention, is the ground of evolution and manifests in recapitulated forms, such as, psychological development. Does that mean that, at any given point, the individual is growing psychologically or in a state of well-being? Of course not, I’m referring to a fundamental existing underlying motivation in all beings to heal the ruptures that occur (as a result of interactions with the world surround) and grow (vis-à-vis mastering developmental tasks). If indeed this mechanism to grow exists within all of us, it would exist, not only in waking consciousness – through guided intention – but also in prereflective consciousness, or what we might call the unconscious. If we observe dream structures and narratives from this perspective, we find a consistent desire to heal, even if in waking life we are paralyzed or self-destructive. It’s kind of like a fish swimming upstream when all odds seem against its final arrival. We are all seeking unity, psychologically speaking, in the form of creating emotional ties. The dream will always reflect that.
Om one more dream question
Is there any other function, that you know of, for dreams. Why else do we dream?
Okay so maybe two...
It's been a while since I've been in class - is there a difference between prereflective consciousness and unconscious?
MEGAN, THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR QUESTIONS
and also pointing out a mistake I made. I meant to write prereflective unconscious, not prereflective consciousness. The prereflective unconscious might be defined as structures of experience made up of recurring but evolving patterns of intersubjective relationships which lead to organizing principles, if you will, that shape personality development. These structures are unconscious but are not what is referred to the unconscious as defensive strategies to keep threatening affects and memories undercover. The prereflective unconscious is more of a philosophical notion of how mind organizes experience.
Regarding dreams, there are a few theories about why we dream other than what I have proposed. One neurobiological activation synthesis theory suggests that the sensory experiences are fabricated by the cortex as a means of interpreting chaotic signals from the pons. The then activated forebrain synthesizes the dream out of internally generated information. Another theory asserts that dreams function like a computer that, when off-line, removes junk from the system.
Because these are physicalist theories, they completely negate mental attribution to dreams, rather than considering that the body (brain) and mind are merely two aspects of consciousness neither of which negates the other; instead physicalist and interpretive theories are like particles and waves, each being observed depending on what level of consciousness or lens you are looking through.
article on blogging
Lot’s of really good conversations being had this Sunday I see. So nice to find all these great discussions taking place really gives me some good stuff to think about throughout my day. Not sure yet where to jump in, I wanted to share an interesting article about blogging from a journalistic perspective. Although pretty long, I enjoyed the authors evolution of writing, reactions and experiences through 8 years of blogging. I was reminded of our blog by this quote:
“Alone in front of a computer, at any moment, are two people: a blogger and a reader. The proximity is palpable, the moment human—whatever authority a blogger has is derived not from the institution he works for but from the humanness he conveys. This is writing with emotion not just under but always breaking through the surface. It renders a writer and a reader not just connected but linked in a visceral, personal way. The only term that really describes this is friendship. And it is a relatively new thing to write for thousands and thousands of friends.”
MEGAN, NICE ARTICLE
Thanks for the glimpse into another blogger's world and his exploration into the world of blogging. I very much like the extended definition of friendship as it applies to the blog community. We can certainly attest to that here. In a way, there is a transitoriness of expression, as Sullivan describes, if not solely for the fact that we keep moving, rarely looking back. And yet, as I mentioned, the shape of consciousness as a returning, as one scholar put it, and as James' new poem conveys it, always keeps us, as a seed to a tree, close to that history of our thoughts, both as a textual recording and as a more ethereal replaying of our own individual consciousnesses playing anew recasted ideas in new forms with novel meaning and a more deeply felt understanding of why we are here at all.
Dishin' it out
i've been an avid Daily Dish reader -- that's Andrew Sullivan's blog -- for, oh, probably over three years now. he is a conservative, someone who has lived in America (from England) for something like 20 years, but cannot yet become a citizen because of our bizarre HIV travel and immigration ban (which seems to finally be on its way out). (also, it should be noted that though he doesn't mention himself in the list of important early bloggers, he is rightly credited as one of those who popularized the medium.) when i started reading the Dish he was still being actively denigrated for supposedly abandoning his ideals after backing Kerry in 2004. of course, he backed Kerry -- hesitantly -- because of his conservative ideals: can anyone really attach the word conservative to the Bush presidency? over the last four years he's come to find the presidency he voted for back in 2000 even more absurd and devastating than he thought back in '04. for a while he was excited for the debate we'd be getting between Obama and McCain, both of whom he respected and admired. he has since become an (even more) avid Obama supporter, thanks to McCain's ambitious turn to Rove's ilk. anyway -- i say all of this to give you a quick acquaintance with my experience of Sullivan's politics over the last few years. more importantly, i'll say i think my perspective on, interest in, and understanding of the political realm of things have all been deepened and enhanced greatly by the Dish, among other blogs. (also, i've learned a lot of fun and silly things when he and other bloggers i read have posted videos, essays, photos... not limited to the political realm of things.) what has gotten me wrapped up much more in the Dish than any other blog (and what accounts for me reading nearly every post of Andrew's, even when i can't keep up with anything else) is this friendship he describes. it's fun to see you guys relate his essay to this blog, especially because he says that the conversation is the point. when i read that i, too, thought of our blog. sure, we have posts on the front page. but whenever i try and describe the blog to someone who hasn't seen it themselves, i always end up saying, "the conversation is the blog; it's the conversation that is really the point of it."
but, of course, our blog is quite different. we are a fairly small community, but i believe we're onto something here. 'blog' isn't really the right word for us, even though we do share something with Andrew and all of those. i get the sense that no one has really come up with a proper medium for what we've got going on here. the closest is a forum, but that doesn't quite get it. the trouble is that we're a chat room that isn't in real-time. we're a roundtable discussion over the internet and over the span of the week. actually, we're several chat rooms going on at once; we're a roundtable of people in chatrooms while sitting at the table. we have a lot of room for different kinds of posts and endless different topics, but when it was really cookin' here on the blog, it just got overwhelming for most of us. how to keep up!?! the reason it was tough to keep up was because we're limited to the form used by everyone else, even though we are doing something seemingly new. this really is a pretty cool website, and if i knew something about web design i'd do my best to construct an altogether new kind of online space for us -- but, in the meantime, i think we're doing just fine :)
More thoughts on Andrew Sullivan
I agree with you Om, I like his new definition of friendship. I also like that he recognizes that the blog has made both journalists more human and the reader more of writers/journalists. The gap between the two decreasing and thus becoming more of a meaningful conversation.
James thanks for sharing a little bit of background that you know about Andrew Sullivan and his blog. The only experience I have of him is on Bill Maher’s show when he is a guest that my friend watches very often, and I always enjoy what he has to bring to the conversation. I mentioned Sullivan’s blog article to my friend and we ended up getting into a long conversation about Sullivan’s conservative belief systems. My friend thinks Sullivan is brilliant and yet is frustrated by what he sees as conflicting interests for Sullivan. He cannot see the logic in a gay man participating in the Christian religion and Republican beliefs. He went on to tell me that doing this is the same as an African American that wants to join the Ku Klux Klan just because they have strong religious and family values. He said he doesn't understand why Sullivan would you want to belong to two very vocal groups that not only do not want him, do not recognize his life choice, but uses his lifestyle as a wedge and platform for their agenda and cause? I don’t really have a counter argument for my friend because I think it is Sullivan’s right to believe in what ever it is he wants to believe in. After reading your experience on the Dish I will certainly share the link with him, maybe he will feel inclined to write to Sullivan and ask him himself.
What a good way to describe our blog, a roundtable, a flowing chat room, I couldn’t agree more. It is very unique for sure and I certainly struggled with keeping up when it was going full speed, at the same time I love what the diversity of experience and perspectives created. I have limited experience on other blogs outside of ours. I do track industry blogs at work most of which are one-way conversation by analysts and reporters. I’ve thought about how our blog can be structured better as well. Like being able to start a page for each conversation, but that would get hard to follow as well and a lot of our conversations have an organic flow from one topic to the other and some of the topics become interconnected.
a defense for andrew sullivan
hey Megan. that last word of yours seems to be the coolest thing about our community, and also the biggest obstacle to a new structure that fits us best of all -- that our streams are interconnected.
anyway, regarding your discussion with your friend: it's a very interesting one. i would certainly want to first and foremost make a distinction between "conservative" and "Republican" because those two are only considred remotely synonymous because Reps have tended toward the conservative side of the aisle, Dems the progressive. but i think Andrew before anyone else would be quick to say that the Republican party as a whole these days fails to live up to its supposedly conservative ideal. but, anyway, to say being a gay man who belongs to the Republican party is like being a black man who belongs to the ku klux klan does feel a bit off to me. i see the analogy being drawn; but, the ku klux klan was all about resisting social change (a nice way of saying, "they were racists, and their whole ideology was built upon this.") -- that was the whole point. the Republican party, on the other hand -- if we say (pretend) for a moment that it is sticking to the conservative ideals it supposedly follows -- is involved in every other aspect of politics and society; the fact of the Republican party's anti-gay inclination is a miniscule concern when faced with the difference between, say, fiscal conservatives and big government proponents. there's an honest difference there, and it is a much more important ideological difference to focus on, and if one party (and only one party) shares your perspective on that issue: well, that may just be the party for you. again, it's important to note that GWB has clearly not been a conservative in any sense of the word i can think of. but to narrow down "conservative" -- or even "Republican" -- to anti-gay is, i think, missing a whole lot. much of the same can be said of Christianity.
i'll add, now, that i find your friend's frustrations compelling -- i'm not saying there's no discussion to be had. Andrew Sullivan, a while back, had a long online exchange with Sam Harris about faith -- Harris arguing that Sullivan's faith is absurd, Sullivan defending it despite said absurdity. it was a little earth-shaking for Andrew. still, i would say i'm unsatisfied by his account of his own Christianity -- not because i think he ought not be a Christian; rather, i want to understand really deep down where his Christianity comes from (and not only his). it is fascinating to me, because i do not know what it feels like, and have no inkling or desire for the experience: just to get what and why it is. i am, however, satisfied about his political leanings. he really just is a conservative -- and any conservative who faces the way things are couldn't earnestly support GWB, or the GOP, or, in all likelihood, (the new incarnation of) McCain (with his Bush-Cheney-Rovian VP nominee, especially). and... Andrew doesn't. but he does still believe that conservatism is the best approach to government. if one needed to agree with everything one's candidate or party espoused in order to vote, we would need very many parties and candidates, indeed.
ANDREW SULLIVAN’S CHOICES
James and Megan, great discussion. I have many thoughts rolling around in my head in response to both of your posts, so let me start with a general irritation I have regarding the art of argument. In any dialogue, it is critical to define one’s terms. So, in reference to Sullivan, I would like to first know what “conservative” means. James suggested it refers to Sullivan’s political ideology, but I’m still not clear what that means for Sullivan. And I’m certainly not clear what it means for Megan’s friend. For example, RJ White comments on conservatism reveal much confusion around the term. There are so many conservatisms, it seems silly to make such grand judgments about anyone’s conservatism:
"To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." (italics mine)
When I think of conservatism, this is what I tend to focus on: a worldview. And though that worldview (the way one sees the reality of world) is coextensive with political affiliation, it is not synonymous with a political party. In general, conservatism refers to the preservation of traditional values and so has a motivational component suggesting a certain resistance to change and need for security over ambiguity. Though for me personally, conservatism is too limiting in most contexts, it has nothing to do with my sexual orientation. Thus, homosexuals can politically be either conservative or progressive/liberal. Agreeing with James on this one, “to narrow down "conservative" -- or even "Republican" -- to anti-gay is, i think, missing a whole lot.” However, I disagree with James when he says, “much of the same can be said of Christianity.” (By the way, Sullivan is Catholic, a denomination of Christianity).
As far as I’m concerned, Catholicism and homosexuality are at deep psychological odds (where conservatism and homosexuality might not be). And though I know a number of gay Catholics (some of who are priests) who struggle with this outlandish schism and attempt to redefine Catholicism, primarily focusing not on the Church but on Catholicism’s “Christ” roots, the poisonous psychological arrows shot at gays cannot be dodged. With that said, James, I find your defense (?) of Sullivan’s choice for Catholicism the right way to go. Regarding Catholicism, you say: “still, i would say i'm unsatisfied by his account of his own Christianity -- not because i think he ought not be a Christian; rather, i want to understand really deep down where his Christianity comes from (and not only his).” Rather than be quick to judge, you instead want to understand how Sullivan (and others) could rationally choose a faith that, at best, is fraught with contradiction and, at worst, is rife with beliefs and a power structure of the worst kind because it completely oppresses critique and threatens psychological (in the form of otherworldly) persecution for dissent. I would also like to know how Sullivan has chosen this faith.
sam and sullivan
what "conservative" means is a good question. Sullivan's got a book called "The Conservative Soul," which probably answers the question of what it means to him. i haven't read it yet, though one of these days i'm sure i will. with regard to Catholicism (and it is best to specify Catholicism -- thanks), the trouble is probably in part not understanding how X, Y and Z have chosen their faith, but that it is chosen -- i believe this is why you put "choice" and "chosen" in italics, to emphasize that you are defining it as a choice. i can't be certain, but i have a hunch that some folks would find the term choice inappropriate -- but, my next hunch tells me, they may be unable to otherwise account for their faith. i don't want to go any further down the chain of hypotheticals here, so i will refrain from an imagined dialogue, and just say that one of Sullivan's remarks in his dialogue with Sam Harris was about death... he ended one of his letters to Harris as follows: "But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?"
so perhaps it is fear, after all; if only in part.
SAM AND SULLIVAN
"i don't want to go any further down the chain of hypotheticals here, so i will refrain from an imagined dialogue, and just say that one of Sullivan's remarks in his dialogue with Sam Harris was about death... he ended one of his letters to Harris as follows: "But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?"
so perhaps it is fear, after all; if only in part."
This is great James. I would like to ask Sullivan if he would ever consider not dying. If so, he could be "saved" now, just by sitting :)
and sublating wouldn't hurt, either :0
JESUS WAS NOT CONSERVATIVE
It is my conviction that human beings necessarily need to move through a deep psychological process in order to have an enduring and heightened spiritual awareness. A heightened awareness cannot happen organically, particularly in a culture which itself is stuck on a developmental level that precludes spiritual awareness. If a culture’s worldview is on a lower developmental level, its human activities, including its religions and psychological programs, will reflect that worldview. According to Ken Wilber’s Integral perspective, for example, the magicanimistic worldview, for example, is marked by a partial overlap of subject and object, so that “inanimate objects” like rocks and rivers are directly felt to be alive or even to possess souls or subjective spirits. This is the world that Rilke, to a large degree, inhabited and spoke about. The mythic worldview is marked by a plethora of gods and goddesses, not as abstract entities but as deeply felt powers, each having a rather direct hand in the affairs of earthly men and women. This is the civilization of ancient Greece. The mental worldview -- of which the “rational worldview” is the best known subset -- is marked by a belief that the subjective realm is fundamentally set apart from the objective realm of nature, and how to relate these two realms becomes one of the most pressing problems in this worldview. The causal worldview is marked by the direct realization of a vast unmanifest realm -- variously known as emptiness, cessation, the Abyss, Being -- a vast Formlessness from which all manifestation springs. And the nondual represents a radical union of the Formless with the entire world of Form.
Without a sufficient number of individuals who are at higher levels of awareness, the rest of the population will never rise above the reality of their culture. Jesus and Buddha, for example, represented such figures. Unfortunately, however, most of their followers were (and are) not on their same spiritual (developmental) level and consequently the followers created religious forms and institutions that reflected a schism, between religion as the single greatest source of human-caused wars, suffering, and misery, and a religion about Ultimate Reality. Jesus and Buddha, because of their exceedingly high level of humanity, reconciled this schism by understanding that these two contradictory aspects of religion (one that divides and one that unites) must be placed in a larger context of understanding.
If Jesus were alive today, he would certainly speak against Christianity in the same way he spoke against any dualistic religion. The Trinity, for instance, though having a strong aesthetic value, has nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings. It was in fact created by the Catholic Church at Nicene in reaction to heterodox theologies. That is, it was created in an attempt to “standardize” belief to give the Church more political power. It took hundreds of years of cultural evolution to deconstruct this invention, but even today most people have no idea that religious artifacts serve human material and psychological desires, not spiritual needs. A more evolved way of exploring religious experience that fosters unification, not division amongst humanity, is what Ken Wilber refers to as a “content-free” integral approach to religion.
“Content-free” refers to the fact that virtually all previous approaches at unification have attempted to find some sort of unity on the level of actual content (whereas the integral approach does not). For example, most of the world’s great religions have some version of the Golden Rule, and most universalists use those types of common elements to find their unity in the world’s religions.
The integral approach does none of that. Or rather, all such similarities in content are looked upon as quite secondary, even trivial. This is why we call the core of the integral approach “content-free.” It finds its similarities in certain patterns of content, not in the content itself.
Here’s a simple example. Notice that all the world’s mature languages contain first-, second-, and third-person pronouns. First person means the person who is speaking (I, me, we); second person means the person spoken to (you, thou); and third person means the person or thing being spoken about (him, her, it). So if you are talking to me about your new car, you are the first person, I am the second person, and the car is the third person.
These pronouns actually represent three perspectives that human beings can take when they talk about the world or attempt to know the world. For example, I have my first-person impressions of my new car (“I like it!”). I can ask you, a second person, what you think about it (“I like it, too!”). You and I are now a “we” (a first-person plural) and we both agree, the car (“it”) is great!
Although there are obviously countless combinations here, it’s sometimes useful to summarize these three major perspectives as I/me, you/we, and he/her/it—or simply “I,” “we,” and “it.” So what? Well, the fact that every major language contains these three types of pronouns means that we have a set of “meta-universals” here, or something that we find in all major cultures.
Notice that these universals—I, we, and it—do not themselves have any content. To say that all languages have a first-person pronoun (“I” or “me”) is not to say anything about that person at all. It is not to say that this person is named Martha, or this person is spiritual, or this person is made of carbon and water molecules, or this person contains Jungian archetypes, or anything like that at all.
It’s much, much deeper than that. To say that all human beings recognize a first-, second-, and third-person perspective is to say that those perspectives—but not necessarily any of their contents—are universally available to all normal humans. It’s sort of like saying that all human beings contain two kidneys, two lungs, and one liver. But it says nothing about what you actually do with your kidneys or lungs or liver. In other words, to say that you have a first-person perspective on what you are reading right now—you are a first-person “I” who is reading this column—is to say nothing about what you actually think about what you are reading. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t. All I am saying is that you definitely have available to you a first-person perspective, and you know that you do.
Now this begins to get interesting, because we have started to find a series of things that are universal, but that themselves have no particular content. They are “meta-universals.” Or, as we were saying, “content-free cross-cultural” patterns. Notice that we never find a perspective running around all by itself, dangling in midair, completely divorced from some sort of content, only that the perspectives themselves are not merely culture-bound or merely relative, appearing in some cultures but not in others. So I am not saying that “content-free” means culture-free; rather, perspectives—such as I, we, and it—are wedded to particular cultures but not reducible to them.
The fascinating part is that these three perspectives might actually give rise to art, morals, and science. Or the Beautiful, the Good, and the True: the Beauty that is in the eye (or the “I”) of the beholder; the Good or moral actions that can exist between you and me as a “we”; and the objective Truth about third-person objects (or “its”) that you and I might discover: hence, art (“I”), morals (“we”), and science (“it”).
The integral approach does claim to be able to “unite,” in some sense, the world’s great spiritual traditions, which is what has caused much of the interest in this approach. If humanity is ever to cease its swarming hostilities and be united in one family, without squashing the significant and important differences among us, then something like an integral approach seems the only way. Until that time, religions will continue to brutally divide humanity, as they have throughout history, and not unite, as they must if they are to be a help, not a hindrance, to tomorrow’s existence."
ONE MORE POINT REGARDING ANDREW SULLIVAN
I didn’t want to gloss over Megan’s friend’s comments on Sullivan’s political and religious choices, particularly how, at least ostensibly, they wax contradictory. Megan said (about her friend), “He said he doesn't understand why Sullivan would you want to belong to two very vocal groups that not only do not want him, do not recognize his life choice, but uses his lifestyle as a wedge and platform for their agenda and cause?”
I think James’ response clarified but also conflated two realities (the real and the ideal): He said, “the Republican party, on the other hand -- if we say (pretend) for a moment that it is sticking to the conservative ideals it supposedly follows -- is involved in every other aspect of politics and society; the fact of the Republican party's anti-gay inclination is a miniscule concern when faced with the difference between, say, fiscal conservatives and big government proponents. there's an honest difference there, and it is a much more important ideological difference to focus on, and if one party (and only one party) shares your perspective on that issue.” (italics mine)
My first question is to James: Why pretend if it has no real bearing on the reality of today's Republican Party? My next question: Is the Republican’s anti-gay (I wouldn’t say “inclination” but) crusade really a “miniscule” concern given the cultural context of the right’s political landscape? How can we separate out anti-gay political sentiment from its underlying hatred? And how different really is this than racism, particularly given the sheer number of gay citizens? Andrew Sullivan might be able to discern between cultural and political contexts from a theoretical perspective, but the reality is that anti-gay policy is tantamount to the cultivation of hatred towards individuals and groups. With that said, I’m not sure that comparing a gay man supporting the “reality” of the American Republican Party to an “African American that wants to join the Ku Klux Klan just because he has strong religious and family values” is so far-fetched. James said, “but, the ku klux klan was all about resisting social change.” I think this is absolutely true of the Republican Party’s current status.
If the Republican Party shares Andrew Sullivan’s views on economic policy, for example, but also promotes social policies that are clearly discriminatory (“how can he support do not recognize his life choice, but uses his lifestyle as a wedge and platform for their agenda and cause”) and (many might say) unconstitutional, particularly for homosexuals, how can he in good conscience be a Republican.
clarification
okay, let me clarify: i wanted to distinguish between "conservative" and "Republican." Sullivan is a conservative, not a Republican. he's campaigning for Obama, and did the same for Kerry. i was troubled by the quick convergence of "conservative" and "Republican" precisely because we have to pretend, these days, if we want two use those two words as