Monday, May 22, 2006

Soul Post

I publish the following email correspondence by way of a soul check-in. Not too long ago I joined “Myspace” and various groups it hosts (an interfaith group among them) relating to ultimate things with the idea of involving myself in a venue of people trying to come together as souls. I haven’t much engaged in the interfaith group yet but I posted the following on a group called the “Holographic Universe”. The following was my first posted Topic which was called: "Science, Culture, Legitimacy and Wholeness"

I suppose I could have been more diplomatic or something about expressing my point of view. I guess I assume less attachment to ones own presumptions on the part of others than it’s realistic to assume. I haven’t received any responses in the forum to my statements but the following “private” correspondence ensued as a result. I print it both as a clarification of my ideas and as an example of the kind of conversations I hope to have—and to proceed with, about such issues.

 So far Mike has not responded to my last e-mail. I am hoping he will but I suspect that, as in most cases of Belief, disagreement is being avoided and that a lack of openness to persuasion on his part is experienced on his part or assumed on my part, or both. I sometimes find it hard to communicate, before acting on it, my assumption of a mutual critical enquiry that is not the same as competitive debate (this assumption is essential to what I call “Good Faith”). Disagreement, when it is genuine and not just competitive, is exciting to me because I believe in a primarily shared reality (not just a primarily shared objective reality but a primarily shared subjective one too). Disagreement to me then means the possibility of my, the other person, or perhaps both of us learning something and in this case learning something important. Therefore I don’t hesitate to disagree with people or require agreement on much as a condition of association. But I am learning, from the results so far, of the following exchange, that I need to be more explicit about this. Perhaps my first post to the interfaith group will be on the topic of this “good Faith itself”. Anyway Here is the exchange with a very little self-editing on my part. Mikes words are in quotes: 

Date: May 16, 2006 7:36 PM

"Hi there,"

Hi mike

"I just skimmed over your post in the holographic universe group, and I was intrigued so I read some of your page. You definitely have some really unique and interesting ideas. I am a student of psychology, and my interest is primarily in consciousness. How does consciousness play into your theory(s)?

What first occurred to me when I read this question was two other questions; "Who's consciousness or "Who is it that is being aware?"(If I could, I would italicize thee "who's") In other words, the issue of Identity (italicized again) as a part of culture came up for me as some kind of necessary priority to, or corollary with, the consideration of "conscious".  The other question was "consciousness of What?” Integral Science assumes that the subject-object dichotomy is not primary, so to me these two questions are mutually dependent on each other.

"I ask this especially because I recently read that one of the accepted definitions of consciousness is awareness of awareness. The example I read was that when one is sleep-walking, he is aware of his environment, but he doesn't know he's aware, so he is yet unconscious. But the funny thing is that, how often are most people really aware that they are aware? I would guess not often. This would mean that most people are not fully conscious most of the time! So for the last few days I have been trying to make a point to be more aware of my own being aware, and it seems to be changing my perspective ever so slowly, and in a very subtle way."

I would not say that consciousness is awareness of awareness. It might be useful to say that consciousness is awareness of Togetherness--including the fundamental togetherness of subject and object I just affirmed.  Such awareness leads to an Identity that is not so one-sidedly located in the dissociated subject (or in the equally dissociated "object" which co-arises with this).

The awareness you describe seems one-sidedly subjective to me--an awareness of the awareness of self (or perhaps even of "Self")--that falls short of what I would like to call "consciousness" because it seems grounded in dualistic cosmological and identity assumptions of apart-ness (reinforced of course, by the repeated Rituals and the alienation-supporting Infrastructure modern "civilization" which are the other part of relatively sick culture).

The awareness of fundamental Togetherness makes the awareness of Self (subjective) also the awareness of Nature" (objective). Or to be less confusing, it makes for the awareness of "Self-Nature" as the affirmation and experience of fundamental "Togetherness" as an Individual-Person.

"I tend to believe in many religions to some extent, although I identify as Christian for several reasons which I can explain later if you're interested. The main thing I believe, though, is that God is pure consciousness, and that after we die we merge with this ultimate consciousness."

I see, in most cases, the dissociation of God from Nature as the analogous to the dissociation of Self From Nature, of humanity from nature, of Humanity from God, of Mind from body, of ego from id and even of "x" from "not-x". Faith in such dissociations as fundamental is a kind of faith in a cosmology of fundamental Apart-ness grounded in a felt experience of primary alienation induced by sick culture. It is sourced also in unconsciousness in the sense I am using. But don’t misunderstand me and think that I am denying this apartness as real with a small "r"; I am denying it as Fundamental--as Real with a capital "r". The logic of togetherness is paradoxical in that it includes the logic of apart-ness as well (see my essay on "Life-Logic" in the integral science blog)

 I think you are definitely on to something with your idea of a 'culture of togetherness', and I’m very curious how you view consciousness and God. I look forward to hearing from you!

Well I don’t really see the point in being a pantheist like Spinoza even though I affirm Self-Nature" rather then a one-sided God-as-Self. I see Self-Nature as the essence of the "Matrix of Being" that expresses itself in Identity as Individual-Personhood. This "Matrix of Being" is a "Womb" that is "inseminated" by "Spirit" or "Freedom" and so conceives and engenders new forms of Being. I would not call "Spirit", "God" though, since that would be extremely misleading. Spirit is Freedom. Freedom is Spirit. The best you can say is that it Transcends Identity. But even that must be understood in a Life-Logical sense...

"I have another essay in my blog called "good sense and the meaning of Life" which seems relevant to some of the above though it’s a little out of date now and I should rewrite it."

Having said all of that about "consciousness" I still want to mention the book I am reading called "plastic words" by Uwe Poerksen, an associate of the late Ivan Illich. Plastic words are one-time vernacular words like "development" or "progress" or "sexuality" that used to mean one thing but that, as a result of being co-opted by science and then reintroduced into the vernacular, have lost their authentic rootedness in real experience. Such words become "square pegs" (the authoress originally called them "Leggo words") which those trying to be “in the know" eagerly begin to force into the round holes of there actual experience of themselves and the world.

I think that if the science that these words were co-opted by (and re-issued from) were an Integral Science that was a part of a healthy culture, then such words would be more meaningful than the vernacular originals and not less. They would not be plastic at all (perhaps they would be different words altogether). As it stands though, such sterilized Leggo words all fit together to make a plastic gateway into a plastic, and dissociated brave new world in which we are all reducible to externally manageable bundles of socio-economic abstractions.

I mention all this in order to wonder aloud whether or not "consciousness" and "awareness" are not sort of New Age plastic words".

Anyway, thanks for your questions and interest. Hope we can keep up the conversation.

Horus/Piankhy

P.s. I am thinking of posting this letter and another on another topic as part of my citizen of the world post in my Life-Dance Log blog. would you mind that?

Mikes Response:

“wow, by reading your response to my message, I realize that I have certain assumptions about things that I didn't realize I had! What those assumptions are, I’m still not sure. If you would, tell me more about the awareness of togetherness - that is something I definitely need to think more about.

And no, I would not mind at all if you used that letter in your blog. In fact I would be honored to be in any way connected to what seems to me to be bordering on the long sought-after theory of everything!”

I thank you for your enthusiasm, but what you write here makes me want to try to transform the sense of our association more in the direction of healthy culture and head off certain manifestations of apart-ness inherent in us communicating only through this Public/Private rather than really Individual-Personal medium. What I mean is that I am interested in egalitarian relationships of what I call “Living Friendship” between individual-persons as such. We are all equal in the relationships/responsibilities of Individual-Personhood since such relationships/responsibilities are inherent in existing at all. Also, having all been born into a culture of apart-ness, we are all more or less estranged, alienated and fucked up to some degree (which degree itself changes from minute to minute.) What interests me is the possibility of us entering into a kind “conspiracy of Healthy Culture” where we can affirm the equality that allows for friendship and “mutual aid” in real learning of healthy culture. I am probably being over sensitive, but certain kinds of praise tend to make me suspect a kind of public/private gloss emerging in which the point becomes some kind of competitive “Greatness” rather than simply the sharing and comparing of understandings as a prelude to some kind of cooperation around actions intended to further healing in both ourselves and the world. In saying all of this I am trying head off any kind of Primary one-sidedness in our relation to each other, so as to make room for the possibility of healthy culture and real, Living-Friendship between us.

“Tell me more, also, about this matrix that is a womb. I agree that Spirit is Freedom and so forth, but why can't we worship it and call it God? What I mean to say is, what is "worship" and what is "God"?”

Worship in a culture of Apart-ness is a ritual of apart-ness that tends to reinforce alienation from the thing worshiped. Master and servant relationships are not relationships among equals and it is only as equals that real healing friendship is possible—this applies as much to externalized projections of this relationship (in which God is the master) as internalized ones in which the mind or ego is usually (though not always) the master. Moreover, since the word God is a projection of the inwardly and outwardly dissociated individual in most cases, the implied righteous father in a divorce with Nature, talk about God (Self), as opposed to “Nature” is just going to reinforce those dissociations and lead away from, rather than toward faith in and progress towards Self-Nature. I know that to talk of Spirit as “inseminating the matrix of Self-Nature” necessarily makes “Spirit” seem like a traditional masculine “God” so maybe I should use another metaphor (I can't really think of a better one so far), but to confuse “God” or “Self” with “Spirit” is I think a terrible confusion.

 It is only possible to approach Spirit through Self-Nature (I suppose you could also call it “God-Nature” or even “Nature-God”) and that means cultivating ones own Self-Nature as an Individual-Person. This is done through the Practice of Healthy Culture, through rituals (and cosmologies and identities and infrastructures) of inner and outer Togetherness. Worshiping a one-sided “God” (or a one-sided, Feminine “Nature" for that matter) involves the opposite of this really; it is really the worship of Apart-ness (of divorce) and the cultivation of Apart-ness. Of course I am using the word “worship” in the usual traditional sense. I’d be curious as to the etymological meaning of the word. Maybe some other definition and use of the word can be justified…

 “Maybe real freedom is found in the choice of what you worship???”

It occurs to me to say rather that Real Freedom finds You, and that it is more likely to be attracted (in a positive sense) to a You dancing the Life-Dance of Togetherness as a practice of Healthy Culture than to any kind of “worship” as ordinarily conceived. But that is probably already saying much too much about Freedom which is after all, Free to be even self-contradictory…

Take care,

Horus/Piankhy

Ps.

There is more about the matrix in the integralscience blog. It’s in the archives.

posted by: piankhy | 15:50 | comments

Friday, May 12, 2006

Familial Post

It shouldn’t really seem strange that after a house meeting I would feel so discouraged about the familial culture here at Tupelo, the household I live in. If just having any kind of meeting were healthy culture then there would be a fair amount of healthy culture in the world. The fact is that most meetings, tonight’s included, end up being distractions from, both what is most essential in what is happening in the world and what is most essential in what is happening with-in ourselves. The worst thing is that having such meetings actually gives one the totally false sense that one is really “taking care of things”. This is really worse than not having a meeting at all. Getting through the agenda, when the agenda includes nothing that really matters just feels…lame.

Yet I might have—if only briefly—been able to tell myself that the meeting went fairly well if I could have kept myself from mentioning the Life-Dance Party that I do in my household at least once a week. I felt the need, for the benefit of the new people there, to bring it up as a thing I do here and, describe it (a very little) and invite further discussion as some other time. What I said took probably less than a minute to say and yet what followed was I think a pretty uncomfortable and slightly ominous silence. Certainly the most ominous of the meeting, which had been fairly lively before. After which silence the meeting was, it seemed to me somewhat hastily, ended.

It’s been a few weeks since I wrote the above. And though I still feel the need not attend another house meeting until I get inner consensus to literally put “Healthy Culture” on the meeting agenda, I feel pretty withdrawn about the whole thing at the moment, somewhat astonished at my own audacity at even considering that real change is possible in the situation. Such a mood of withdrawal is not at all unfamiliar to me. It’s not good for me to feel this way though and I need to keep reminding myself that imagined—or even real—hopelessness is no reason not to keep doing what makes sense. Bringing up the obvious thing, the elephant in the middle of the room that nobody wants to talk about is, like doing Life-dance parties here, necessary and helpful for the sake of my own sanity if in no other way. This is something I usually don’t hesitate to do in one-to-one conversations with people in my household so I’m not sure why my intuition protests so much at it sometimes in groups. Perhaps it’s telling me that I am myself too weak in healthy culture, to withstand concertedly willful misunderstanding or overt or deliberately covert hostility.

Generally speaking, being “on the wagon” my self about sick culture means that encountering other in groups for me is something like a recovering alcoholic entering a bar alone at happy hour.  The thickness of collusion and denial are too intimidating and overwhelming in a group setting. It becomes too difficult not to either succumb or overreact in some way that would almost be just as bad. In the case of the above meeting I did a little of both, though the overreacting (if that is what it was) was delayed and private.

 I can be “passing through” such a situation and the decision not to stop and name what is going on in it is easy to make in the name of goodsense in the light of exigencies of the moment, but deliberate attendance at such a pseudo-coming-together without some real preparation and readiness to challenge what is happening is a misjudgment that is just weakening. Mentioning the life-dance party at the end of the meeting was a saving grace even though my announcement lacked all together the tone of indomitable self-confidence that might have pleased my vanity or of the unconditionally compassionate hospitality that I would have liked to have actually felt, and even though the immediate results were so unpleasant.

The longer term results (a least I imagine that what I said at that meeting had something to do with this), is that a few new household members have on occasion joined me in life-dancing. Actually sometimes I have felt joined much more in body than in spirit, but at other times at least some of the spirit seems to have been there as well and just yesterday some one actually asked for a formal introduction to and experience of, the ritual of conscious hanging out that the Life-dance party is. I got some needed practice teaching the Facilitation breath that opens (and sometimes closes) the ritual and that alone was very worthwhile even if nothing else comes of it.

And yet I still feel that, since those willing to sample a part of my cultural “twelve-step program” have nevertheless declined to abstain or even fully admit to “addiction”, whatever bond results from our association might just as easily serve to “pull me off the wagon” as to help them to get on it. After all, most of the world is on their end of the rope and I am the only one on my end so far as I know. Still, the danger and precariousness of the situation—of my situation in general as well as at Tupelo and Twin Oaks-- is part of what makes it interesting, of what makes it Living and not just surviving. Success for me is not avoiding trouble so much as getting myself in the right kind of trouble. “Healing trouble”, “Healthy Culture trouble” is trouble that has the likely outcome of being a healing crisis both inwardly and outwardly, of making both my self and the world more whole. I can’t take for granted that what is going on in my Familial venue is really that now, or, if it is, that it will remain so, but it feels alright for the time being.

Anyway, I seem to have written my way out of the mood I was in when I began finishing this post.

Listening…

posted by: piankhy | 18:15 | comments